[Bug 427481] Review Request: publican - publication tool chain

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481





------- Additional Comments From kwade at redhat.com  2008-02-11 08:37 EST -------
(In reply to comment #93)
> 
> - Added GFDL to License to cover content and Book_Template directories.
> - Included GFDL txt file

I want to reiterate a point here because it may save time and hassle in the
future if we resolve this now.

You may recall that when the Fedora Project was formed, all the Docs Project
work was under the GFDL.  This was done as an assumptive move by Project
founders, they never asked Legal what license to use, and it turned out to be a
mistake.  Red Hat Legal (Mark Webbink) required us to re-license all the
content, which was a fair bit of work.

It is not clear to me if the upstream of publican (in the form of Red Hat's
Content Services team) is actually permitted to use the GFDL.  It sounds as if
you chose to pick a good license from the Fedora Project list and Red Hat Legal
may not have been involved in the license choice?

Based on the previous commit, it sounds as if Book_Template is covered by the
GFDL.  I can see in the Book_Info.xml file that Common_Content/Legal_Notice.xml
is called by the template.

https://fedorahosted.org/documentation-devel/browser/trunk/publican/Book_Template/en-US/Book_Info.xml

Does that make just the template under the GFDL or ...?  If the template is
under the GFDL, I'm unclear on how Fedora is going to use the tool.  If I use it
to make a book for Fedora, but the book *cannot* be under the GFDL due to
Legal's previous restrictions, how does the license affect the content I am
going to write into that template?  If it makes the content GFDL, then that
template cannot be used for Fedora content.

This is why I have been advocating across the board usage of the OPL without
restrictions for all parts of publican, from the tools to the templates to the
branding files.  True, there are other licenses that a package can use and have
that package be in Fedora (the distro).  But if you want the package to be
useful to Fedora (the Project), this mix of licenses does not make it clear that
it *can* be used.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.