permission to use spec files in other projects (Was Re: clamav)

Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa at redhat.com
Thu Sep 27 14:53:27 UTC 2007


On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 16:42 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 10:34 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 10:33 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 19:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > > > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 06:50 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > >> May-be it would be helpful, if Fedora's EULA was added a sentence
> > > > >> stating a default license. Say, something similar to "unless otherwise
> > > > >> stated, Fedora *.specs are considered to be licensed <to be
> > > > >> specified>". 
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't disagree with this, but amending the EULA is PAINFUL.
> > > > > Essentially, we'd have to get everyone to resign it, and that would be
> > > > > after Red Hat legal spits it out. We're talking about months of pain, at
> > > > > a minimum.
> > > > 
> > > > Everyone would have to resign it? Why?
> > > 
> > > Did you agree to put all of your contributed spec files to a specific
> > > license as part of the original EULA? 
> > > 
> > > No? :) Then you'd need to resign it. It's not a living document, we
> > > cannot simply add things to it ex post facto and have them apply.
> > 
> > Sorry, EULA is the wrong word. CLA is what I meant to say.
> That's why I was talking about EULA.
> 
> You could (presumably) easily add a note (attendum) stating something
> similar to:
> "Unless otherwise stated inside, the *.spec files found inside of
> *.src.rpms can be assumed to be covered by following license ...."

I can only do this if every spec file contributor agrees to that
sublicense.

~spot




More information about the fedora-advisory-board mailing list