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. -- Jim Perrin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77