Fedora Board Recap 2007-NOV-13

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:49:07 +0100
Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip at kanarip.com> wrote:

> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:15:34 +0100
> > Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip at kanarip.com> wrote:
> >> This branch in the discussion isn't my beef and I should stick to my 
> >> point; giving anyone enough freedom to do whatever it is they want to do 
> >> with Fedora, based on Fedora or rebranded FUbuntu for all I care, 
> >> without the legal responsibilities of having to host or distribute the 
> >> sources or creating any other type of overhead. No-one (individuals and 
> >> small projects in particular) should care about GPL-compliance knowing 
> >> that someone else has that area covered.
> > 
> > I think that is a dangerous statement to make.  If you are distributing
> > binaries of GPL'd work, you should care about GPL-compliance.  Making
> > an assumption that it is handled by someone else is putting their head
> > in the sand.
> > 
> > If Fedora is covering it for them, and they know that, great.  If it
> > isn't, or something changes, they should be prepared to get themselves
> > back into compliance one way or another.
> > 
> > I understand your point, but you need to be careful with how you state
> > your goal.
> > 
> 
> When pulled out of context, it doesn't make a very good quote. The 
> entire /thread/ is about how I want FP to carry the burden and how the 
> individual or small project to be able to rely upon that.

It's not out of context.

Even if you accomplish your goal in getting Fedora to carry the burden
_now_, that doesn't mean it can't change again in the future.  GPL
compliance is not something you figure out once and call it good,
because things change and downstreams would have to adapt to that.

josh