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

Re: Licensing directions for Fedora content

Karsten Wade wrote:
> http://iquaid.org/2009/01/06/the-outside-and-inside-of-documentation-or-why-arent-you-publishing-on-the-fedora-wiki/#comment-2960
> I fully understand Thilo's points, and in many ways he is correct.
> Would there be value in pursuing additional licensing for Fedora
> Documentation?
> To be clear -- we really want to trust our lawyers on this one, so in
> the end, what they recommend or require is surely the way to go.  But
> we can go a long way toward influencing their opinion on the community
> value of a licensing decision, outside of the legal value.

Much of the FAQ cited in the blog post is incorrect or outdated information


My understanding is that, CLA does not make Red Hat, a additional
copyright holder but only allows Red Hat the right to use the content.
Also Red Hat's content for RHEL doesn't use OPL with the restrictions as
it used to before. Can spot go through this FAQ and make it up2date?

If we decide to relicense the wiki/published content under CC share
alike license, do we have to ask again all our contributors? My
understanding is, yes since CLA doesn't assign copyright to Red Hat as
the blog post claims.

Also the blog post seems to be of the mistaken impression that OPL is
Red Hat's own license but it should be noted that Red Hat used a
pre-existing free and open content license (as acknowledged by FSF and
others) and used by Oreilly and other publications long before it was
used by Red Hat.  OPL is incompatible with CC licenses but the CC
licenses themselves are incompatible between each other and they are
incompatible with GNU FDL as well. While we can help by sticking to the
more commonly used licenses, it doesn't make any of other long standing
incompatibilities (such as the ones between FDL and CC licenses ) go away.


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