On 26.02.2008 15:16, Hans de Goede wrote:
Matthias Saou wrote:
> Xavier Lamien wrote :
>> Regarding FAS, there still seems to be more work required :
>>> - Rebrand all of the web interface (to remove "Fedora" where it
>>> make sense to have it) - minor
>>> - Check and update the agreement text sent by email.
>>> - Make the agreement signing work (as it seems to be sent by email,
>>> thus processed by some script from there?)
>>> - Probably a little more fixes... testing will say...
>> That should be fix at the end of this week, will do some work around.
>> If you guys have some ideas about an potential theme, feel free to post.
> But if we need to redirect an email address to have sent emails be
> piped to a script on a server which has access to the FAS in order to
> check the GPG signature... it's going to be slightly harder and you
> will most likely need me to configure some stuff on the email side.
> If we don't really care about the agreement, and only want to verify
> the user's GPG signature, then we could short-circuit that part of the
> signup and just let the user upload a signed file through the FAS web
I think this is the best idea, the CLA makes no sense for rpmfusion, as the CLA
gives a license to an legal instance to use the code contributed, but there is
no legal instance, so one party to the CLA is the contributer, but who is going
to be the other party in the rpmfusion case?
Hmmm. You have a point. But on the other hand it might be wise to do
some easy CLA like "You hereby agree that all you contributions to
are licensed under <foo> if not otherwise specified
(implicit or explicit)" (foo=BSD?) Otherwise we might run into the same
problems we had in EPEL recently ("Can I safely take a spec from EPEL,
modify it and use it in my Repo?").