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

Re: relicensing of Fedora wiki/docs (OPL => CC BY SA)

On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 07:52:47PM +0200, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
> What are the main diferences beetween OPL 1.0 and the new CC BY SA 3.0
> license.

I cannot provide a legalistic difference, except to note that the OPL
was written by a non-lawyer and has been explained to me as containing
legal flaws, whereas the CC licenses are lawyer-written, have iterated
a few times, and are generally well used/tested.

Regarding features, that also takes a deeper legal understanding than
I can provide.  The CC seems to be more liberal in allowing
derivatives to be sub-licensed with a similar license, but that is
just an understanding have and is not a legal opinion.

The biggest differences I think I cover in my article[1], namely:

1. OPL is deprecated, unsupported, and not lawyer preferred; CC is
   very popular, supported, and lawyer preffered.
   ** More chances to reuse CC licensed content.
   ** Makes our content more useful for other people to blend in to a CC

2. Very little open content exists under the OPL by comparison to the
   CC.  The OPL is a very small content island, the CC is a very large
   content sub-continent.

- Karsten

[1] http://iquaid.org/2009/07/06/why-relicense-fedora-documentation-and-wiki-content/
Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener

Attachment: pgpsd1zSDwHU4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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