[CentOS-devel] RFC: Alternative Desktop SIG

Manuel Wolfshant wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro
Fri Mar 14 23:50:19 UTC 2014



On 15 martie 2014 01:44:53 EET, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
>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 
Right, my bad. That's what I meant.


>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..
I agree with you, but common sense has different meanings for different people, though.


More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list