[CentOS-devel] RFC: Alternative Desktop SIG

Stephen John Smoogen smooge at gmail.com
Fri Mar 14 23:44:53 UTC 2014


On 14 March 2014 17:32, Manuel Wolfshant <wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro> wrote:

>
>
> On 15 martie 2014 00:44:29 EET, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> How would this apply to something like EPEL, which in el6 has XFCE
> >> packaged. Would it be acceptable to pull that in, or would that
> >simply
> >> count as 1 of the 3?
> >>
> >>
> >That was something that I figured would also need to be planned for.
> >Where
> >do these packages live? Who is caring for them? My initial viewpoint is
> >that it would be nice if the people on a desktop were co-maintainers on
> >the
> >package set if it were in EPEL.
>
> Beware that - leaving sponsorship aside - becoming an EPEL maintainer
> implies accepting the Fedora EULA. I know of people who refused to /could
> not become Fedora contributors because they could/would not accept that
> license.
>
>
I don't know of a Fedora EULA (which would be an End User License
Agreement). There is a Fedora Contributor Agreement which replaced a
different one (Fedora ICLA) which did have the stigma you listed above .

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Fedora_Project_Contributor_Agreement

Most of these rules seem to be common sense ones..

-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20140314/bf6f5206/attachment.html 


More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list