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

Re: Wiki not editable?



On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 08:59:34PM -0500, Patrick W. Barnes wrote:
> > It says "Texts contributed after 2006-02-19 or by members of the
> > EditGroup are the licensed under the terms of the Open Publication
> > License v1.0 without options, unless otherwise noted."  And it does not
> > say _who_ can otherwise note.  While I don't personally agree with this
> > specific instance, I also don't see where licensing a page under a
> > different license is not allowed.  The wording is a bit ambiguous.
> The "unless otherwise noted" is intended to allow the Board, assorted
> committees, etc. to handle special cases where the OPL cannot apply, such
> as pages where the ACLs have been loosened to allow anyone to contribute
> without granting a copyright license. It is not a manner for contributors
> to circumvent our licensing requirements. The Fedora Project holds a

You must admit it is ambiguous. Or actually, I'm inclined to say "doesn't
seem ambigous at all, but rather clearly states that some content may be
licensed differently". 

> copyright license for anything that is submitted by a contributor with a
> signed CLA. Using the power of that copyright license, the Fedora Project
> applies the OPL without options to documentation and website
> contributions. That right is not revocable.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, the copyright license wording is not so broad
as that. Specifically, it says:

  2. Contributor Grant of License. You hereby grant to Red Hat, Inc., on
     behalf of the Project, and to recipients of software distributed by the
     Project:

      (a) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty
      free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative
      works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and
      distribute your Contribution and such derivative works; and,

      [... other, patent-related stuff ...]

While Red Hat can sublicense under this grant, it doesn't seem to say "may
completely relicense".


As a bystander here, it really seems like you are taking an unnecessarily
antagonistic tone in this conversation. Rather than being so declarative,
can't maybe something be worked out in a civilized way?

-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm mattdm org          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>


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