Wiki Licensing

[Karsten Wade]

On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 08:13 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

> > Without the CLA, the Foundation doesn't have any copyright on the
> > materials, but if we create a mechanism that is a click-through
> > agreement to use the OPL, aren't we covered for the future of that
> > content?  If they put it on the Wiki, it is OPL, so we can use it, and
> > who cares about the copyright?  Well, only if we want to relicense
> > *again* someday, and, Lords and Ladies, I hope I am not around if that
> > happens.

Here is a link to the CLA, for discussion:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/CLA?highlight=%28copyright%29

> From the OPL's Requirements on Modified Works:
> * The person making the modifications must be identified and the
> modifications dated.

Wiki and CVS can provide this.  Maybe we can make up a customizable
query?

> * Acknowledgement of the original author and publisher if applicable
> must be retained according to normal academic citation practices. 
> 
>   * The location of the original unmodified document must be
>     identified. 

Another CVS pointer?

However, let's continue ...

> Won't these requirements cause problems if the copyright isn't assigned
> to one entity?  (The Fedora Foundation?  The Fedora Docs Project?)
> Either different sections/pages of the wiki have different original
> authors/copyright holders and thus the attributions to the original will
> be convoluted or the various contributors who modify a section of the
> wiki will need to be noted (equally convoluted).

The question therefore is:  Does the CLA assign copyright to the Fedora
Project?

I think that's the purpose, to provide a dual-copyright so that the
Project doesn't have to chase down N contributors should a licensing
issue arise.  Or other proceeding that required representation from a
copyright holder, who may no longer be working with the project, etc.

Let's see if we can get this affirmed from the Board and their legal
counsel, as that informs our decision to require the CLA

Or, Greg, _is_ the CLA required and I'm playing Devil's advocate to a
mirror?

> I don't see this as a problem within the wiki (I think the wiki's
> internal tracking may be sufficient in this regard) but what happens
> when a page from the wiki is reprinted in "Fedora Linux in a Nutshell"
> or similar.  Doesn't this lead to tracking of multiple people's claims
> on the content and printing all of their names in the book?
> 
> If copyright is assigned, then the attribution is simple:  This section
> is reprinted from www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/  (C) The Fedora Project.

Good point.  If this is the case, that the Project gains copyright,
thereby allowing it to use a copyleft license, with the signing of the
CLA, than I think we _have_ to accept the downsides.  Mainly, that Wiki
contribution is based on the difficulty to gain edit rights.  Maybe
that's OK, the CLA is a very short barrier, IMNSHO.

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint:  2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115    5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41   
Content Services                          Fedora Documentation Project
http://www.redhat.com/docs   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-marketing-list/attachments/20060215/76ae7124/attachment.sig>