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?").
Sounds like a plan, this also has the advantage that we can keep all the logic
surrounding the CLA currently in fas.