Licensing directions for Fedora content

[Ian Weller]

On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 01:55:50PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
> Red Hat Legal, while tolerant of our OPL stance, would actually much
> prefer it if we went to CC-BY-SA for our docs. I've asked them to double
> check that this is acceptable to them, and if so, draft up some wording
> around how we would like people to give us attribution (that is the real
> weakness in CC-BY-SA).
> 
Given that we can find a good way to require those doing that to give us
attribution, I'd strongly support using the CC-BY-SA, most notably
because it's a more widespread license that I think a lot more people
have heard of than the OPL.

-- 
Ian Weller <ianweller at gmail.com>
GnuPG fingerprint:  E51E 0517 7A92 70A2 4226  B050 87ED 7C97 EFA8 4A36
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/attachments/20090406/6b6c26e2/attachment.sig>