Miro Hrončok writes:
> If that's the case, can we please stop enforcing the signed-off-by
> thing in Fedora projects (such as various Fedora projects on Pagure or
> Bodhi on GitHub)?
My understanding is that's about provenance, not licensing per se (not a
lawyer etc.). In any case it's up to
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 9:36 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 22. 03. 22 v 19:18 Michal Schorm napsal(a):
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 7:06 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
> >> I would assert that the "unlicensed
> >> contribution" scenario contemplated by the FPCA is actually going to
> >> be fairly rare
On 23. 03. 22 9:35, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I understand your answer as that:
it is irrelevant whether the contributor specified the license (e.g.
text "I submit this under GPL-2.0 license" in the pull request
comment)
If somebody states license of the contribution, then it has to be respected.
Dne 22. 03. 22 v 19:18 Michal Schorm napsal(a):
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 7:06 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
I would assert that the "unlicensed
contribution" scenario contemplated by the FPCA is actually going to
be fairly rare apart from the special case of spec files, which the
FPCA was
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 7:06 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
> I would assert that the "unlicensed
> contribution" scenario contemplated by the FPCA is actually going to
> be fairly rare apart from the special case of spec files, which the
> FPCA was particularly aimed at. In the typical case, a
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:25 PM Michal Schorm wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to answer this question:
> "Under which license are the contributions done to Fedora Project,
> unless license is specified - and how make this clear to the
> contributors (or whether we make this clear enough)".
>
