On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:53:31AM -0500, Jim Perrin wrote:
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.
Right, that "something" is almost all of what the FPCA does — except MIT instead of GPL.
I am kind of getting the sense that people who are opposed to the FPCA haven't actually looked at it. :-/
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.
Under section 1 of the FPCA, as long as there is some authorization from the copyright holder, this would be okay. (Our list of approved open source / free software licenses is explicitly given as one form of authorization, but not necessarily the only one.)