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

Re: Licensing directions for Fedora content



On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 03:30:26AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Paul W. Frields wrote:
> 
> > 
> > We have moved licenses before, from FDL to OPL, and it involved a huge
> > amount of effort to track down all the contributors for sign-off.  I
> > would encourage a CLA that still allowed Red Hat, on behalf of the
> > Fedora Project, to relicense contributions in a way that imposes no
> > additional terms on the recipient.  (I.e. you can get less
> > restrictive, not more restrictive.)  However, I suspect that's a
> > really difficult target to hit in legalese.
> 
> It is also sometimes plain wrong.  GPLv3 has more requirements but also
> relaxes particular requirements as well but many would say, thats a
> better licenses than previous versions. Also CC share alike might have
> more requirements than OPL as well. More requirements doesn't
> necessarily mean a bad thing. It's a tricky thing. What I would prefer
> is a counter obligation from Red Hat to keep the CLA contributions free
> and open source but continue to allow relicensing. FSF has something
> similar if you want to know how that works legally.

FSF uses copyright assignment, IIRC, which we don't.

> > We should not make this effort without communicating with our
> > compatriots in Red Hat Documentation.  They moved to the OPL to match
> > our requirements so it would only be fair to coordinate with them.
> 
> IIRC this change was driven by Red Hat Legal.  What does Red Hat legal
> say now?

I wouldn't presume to speak for Red Hat Legal.  The OPL was a free
license that matched Fedora Documentation.  Spot has already said in
his previous post that Red Hat Legal might now prefer CC-BY-SA.

Paul

Attachment: pgpC9ctKDjhId.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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