[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Fedora websites and licensing



On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 10:29 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 15:10 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >> IIRC, part of the question was what license the "code" involved in the 
> >> website fell under.  That is does the css and templates for the websites 
> >> also fall under the OPL?
> > 
> > Exactly the point of this thread.  The *content* is under the OPL.  The
> > markup around just the content is probably covered by that OPL.  But the
> > rest of the site (CSS, Python, TurboGears, HTML, etc.) has not been
> > licensed.  It is, however, a contribution, so is covered at a minimum by
> > the CLA.
> > 
> TurboGears apps are all licensed although not all of them have the 
> license information in all the source files:

Thankfully each of these projects did as Paul said, get the licensing
straight from the start.

Figuring this out is going to be a great geek research project:

* Sort through commits to /cvs/fedora and the new fedorahosted.org git
space to find out all committers

* Look through f-websites-l for precedent in terms of licensing; was
this ever discussed and settled?

While the original sites were all (C) Red Hat, Inc., this new stuff has
multiple copyright owners, and is much more pervasive than
fedora.redhat.com was.

Ultimately, we're protected by the CLA in terms of usage, but it makes
it hard to make our parts and pieces into an upstream others can consume
and contribute to.  No matter the pain, it is probably worth it to do
the research and get agreements from all contributors.

- Karsten

> Source Headers:
>    GPLv2:
>      FAS2
>      PackageDB
>      Bodhi
>    GPLv2+:
>      smolt: client
> 
> One License File for the Project:
>    MIT/X11:
>      Mirrormanager[1]_
>    GPL+:
>      smolt: smoon (server)[2]_
>      Transifex
> 
> [1]_: Helper script under GPLv2
> [2]_: smolt client and server are hosted together in the same tarball 
> and repository so the fact that the client has a header explicitly 
> listing GPLv2+ might make the server GPLv2+ as well.  The smolt authors 
> would probably be willing to clarify this in any case.
> 
> -Toshio
> 
> _______________________________________________
> fedora-advisory-board mailing list
> fedora-advisory-board redhat com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
-- 
Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]