Re: Request for Comments: Fedora Project Contributor Agreement Draft (Replacement for Fedora Individual Contributor License Agreement)
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 16:15 -0500, charles zeitler wrote: i looked at this (and the MIT license) didn't see any explicit reference to source code! (e.g. , that it must be made available.) Indeed. For an MIT licensing regime to be considered free, the original author must provide the source. But being non-copyleft, the license does not require distributors of derived works to provide source. I can't imagine Fedora accepting a contribution in binary form, so I believe this is a non-issue. -- Matt -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Request for Comments: Fedora Project Contributor Agreement Draft (Replacement for Fedora Individual Contributor License Agreement)
But it should be explicitly stated anyway. Legalese isn't English. Note: IANAL On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.netwrote: On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 16:15 -0500, charles zeitler wrote: i looked at this (and the MIT license) didn't see any explicit reference to source code! (e.g. , that it must be made available.) Indeed. For an MIT licensing regime to be considered free, the original author must provide the source. But being non-copyleft, the license does not require distributors of derived works to provide source. I can't imagine Fedora accepting a contribution in binary form, so I believe this is a non-issue. -- Matt -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
