On 06/29/2015 09:33 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 08:14:09AM -0500, Jim Perrin wrote:
It's a bit too restrictive in some areas, but we can make some adjustments as needed.
I'm curious which areas you find too restrictive. The list of acceptable open source / free software licenses? Or, you need to be able to accept unlicensed contributions? (Note that the list includes a number of very unrestrictive licenses, including CC0 and WTFPL (or NLPL if you prefer.)
A bit of both. We may need some unlicensed contributions so something like "if you submit code you wrote without a license, the default distro license of GPLv2 applies" or something.
The other bit that may come up is the need to distribute non-free (but legal) code. For example a hardware vendor supplies a binary blob for an aarch64 network card, or a SIG decides to include the nvidia binary etc. So long as they can be legally distributed without cost, it should be possible.
While not _necessary_, it'd be nice to have basically unified policies here — maybe even to the point where one agreement might cover both CentOS and Fedora contributions.
Agreed, or at least the ability to use them in layers. I could see a time in the future where federated auth between CentOS and Fedora would be beneficial.