On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:53:31AM -0500, Jim Perrin wrote:
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.
Not specifying a license means it's proprietary and if you were to use 'public domain', it cannot be used in some countries such as France.
All what the FPCA does is saying: if you do not put a license on your work yourself, the MIT license will apply to it.
Pierre