[Ambassadors] Poll ?? No!!

[Patrick W. Barnes]

On Monday 19 February 2007, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Patrick W. Barnes wrote:
> > Trivial, sure, but it's already hard enough to get people to pay
> > attention to the CLA.  It would be only a matter of time before someone
> > would use content without checking for a completed CLA.
>
> The answer, in my opinion, is to remove the CLA requirement *completely*
> if you're not submitting actual code.  There are simpler ways to enforce
> "copyright cleanliness" for wiki-based content.  For instance:
>
> "By editing this wiki page, you agree that the content you add is made
> available under the Open Publication License (link), and that you have the
> legal right to contribute such content."
>
> The CLA is overkill for wiki contribution.
>

We would need a bit more than that.  We have to get an agreement to the full 
CLA, not just the current wiki license.  The CLA does a lot more than make 
sure everything is under the OPL.  If we only require agreement to the OPL, 
we'd be facing the same situation that made us add the CLA requirement if 
ever we wanted to change licenses again in the future.  I'm sure Red Hat 
counsel would have other input on the matter.  That also doesn't address any 
of the concerns with regard to the mailing list requirements.  This is really 
a discussion for another time and place, though.

-- 
Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
nman64 at n-man.com

http://n-man.com/

LinkedIn:
http://linkedin.com/in/nman64

Have I been helpful?  Rate my assistance!
http://rate.affero.net/nman64/
-- 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-ambassadors-list/attachments/20070219/c60e1117/attachment.sig>