<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">2008/3/2, Hans de Goede <<a href="mailto:j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl">j.w.r.degoede@hhs.nl</a>>:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:<br> > On 26.02.2008 15:16, Hans de Goede wrote:<br> >> Matthias Saou wrote:<br> >>> Xavier Lamien wrote :<br> >>>> Regarding FAS, there still seems to be more work required :<br>
>>>>> - Rebrand all of the web interface (to remove "Fedora" where it doesn't<br> >>>>> make sense to have it) - minor<br> >>>>> - Check and update the agreement text sent by email.<br>
>>>>> - Make the agreement signing work (as it seems to be sent by email,<br> >>>>> thus processed by some script from there?)<br> >>>>> - Probably a little more fixes... testing will say...<br>
>>>> That should be fix at the end of this week, will do some work around.<br> >>>> If you guys have some ideas about an potential theme, feel free to post.<br> >>> But if we need to redirect an email address to have sent emails be<br>
>>> piped to a script on a server which has access to the FAS in order to<br> >>> check the GPG signature... it's going to be slightly harder and you<br> >>> will most likely need me to configure some stuff on the email side.<br>
>>> If we don't really care about the agreement, and only want to verify<br> >>> the user's GPG signature, then we could short-circuit that part of the<br> >>> signup and just let the user upload a signed file through the FAS web<br>
>>> interface.<br> >> I think this is the best idea, the CLA makes no sense for rpmfusion, as the CLA<br> >> gives a license to an legal instance to use the code contributed, but there is<br> >> no legal instance, so one party to the CLA is the contributer, but who is going<br>
>> to be the other party in the rpmfusion case?<br> ><br> > Hmmm. You have a point. But on the other hand it might be wise to do<br> > some easy CLA like "You hereby agree that all you contributions to<br>
> <a href="http://rpmfusion.org">rpmfusion.org</a> are licensed under <foo> if not otherwise specified<br> > (implicit or explicit)" (foo=BSD?) Otherwise we might run into the same<br> > problems we had in EPEL recently ("Can I safely take a spec from EPEL,<br>
> modify it and use it in my Repo?").<br> ><br> <br> <br>Sounds like a plan, this also has the advantage that we can keep all the logic<br> surrounding the CLA currently in fas.</blockquote><div><br>Same <br></div>
<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Regards,<br> <br><br> Hans<br> </blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Xavier.t Lamien<br>
--<br>French Fedora Ambassador<br>Fedora/EPEL Contributor | <a href="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/XavierLamien">http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/XavierLamien</a><br>GPG-Key ID: F3903DEB<br>Fingerprint: 0F2A 7A17 0F1B 82EE FCBF 1F51 76B7 A28D F390 3DEB