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