Re: FOSDEM discussions

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 doesn't >>>> 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 >> interface. > 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 rpmfusion.org 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?").