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.