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

Re: Fedora websites and licensing



On Fri, 23 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Doesn't the CLA allow us to re-license contributions that came in from
start to finish by people who have signed the CLA?

	-Mike


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