Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information
On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 14:01:52 -0400 Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 01:22:46PM +1000, Ruediger Landmann wrote: So far we've looked at the WTFPL[1], CC0[2], and the so-called GNU All-Permissive License[3]. We had to regretfully reject the WTFPL on the basis that some people might find it offensive. :( This is a real shame, because it basically stands for everything that we need the license on the Common Content files to stand for... Agreed, this is unfortunate. :) When we read the GNU All-Permissive License, it turned out to be not what it claims, since rather than being all permissive, it requires re-users to leave the license in place. Relicensing is therefore as difficult as it is now. I think this is not a correct interpretation, as the mere fact that a license requires preservation of a licensing notice doesn't mean that it has a copyleft effect; this is well established in FOSS tradition as evidenced by BSD and MIT and Apache (etc.) licensing. Nevertheless, it is true that CC-0 requires no preservation of the CC-0 text; indeed it logically couldn't because in CC-0 the copyright holder is at least attempting to abandon all ability to enforce copyright on the work. No objection to CC-0 though, which in the end is probably no worse than and probably better than traditional simple public domain dedications. - RF ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information
RF == Richard Fontana rfont...@redhat.com writes: [Offensiveness of WTFPL text] RF Agreed, this is unfortunate. :) Might I suggest simply modifying the offensive language? I know license proliferation is bad, but if the result is legally equivalent and serves the necessary purpose then I don't see any reason not to just do it. - J ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information
[removed publican-list from cc] On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:44:54 -0500 Jason L Tibbitts III ti...@math.uh.edu wrote: [re: WTFPL] Might I suggest simply modifying the offensive language? I know license proliferation is bad, but if the result is legally equivalent and serves the necessary purpose then I don't see any reason not to just do it. Certainly Fedora should be prepared to accept licenses that are equivalent to the WTFPL just as it accepts the WTFPL. Also there's no question that the WTFPL has earned an important place in FOSS culture despite being rarely used. However, this is a situation where Red Hat is acting as copyright holder and/or outbound licensor. For *Red Hat code* we generally avoid licenses that are not commonly used (i.e., that aren't associated with substantial project communities), and we generally avoid licenses that are modified versions of other licenses, unless the modified version is itself a commonly-used license. Of course the mere fact that a license is popular doesn't mean it's better, but we see a lot of value in promoting license standardization. For those reasons (and not any sense of primness), we wouldn't encourage our developers to apply the WTFPL to Red Hat-copyrighted code, and we'd certainly oppose applying some sanitized WTFPL derivative to Red Hat-copyrighted code. (On the other hand we encourage our developers to make licensing decisions that are informed by concerns about their users.) - RF ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information
On 10/06/2009 02:01 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: We need this license to be compatible with inclusion in works produced by Fedora Docs, and in works that incorporate content from the Fedora wiki, right? If CC0 can coexist peacefully in that role with the new CC licensing used in both those cases, it does seem like the best contender. Assuming that the CC licensing is CC-BY-SA (Attribution Share-Alike), right? I've asked Red Hat Legal here, just to make sure my instincts are right. ~spot ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 02:14:12PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: On 10/06/2009 02:01 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: We need this license to be compatible with inclusion in works produced by Fedora Docs, and in works that incorporate content from the Fedora wiki, right? If CC0 can coexist peacefully in that role with the new CC licensing used in both those cases, it does seem like the best contender. Assuming that the CC licensing is CC-BY-SA (Attribution Share-Alike), right? I've asked Red Hat Legal here, just to make sure my instincts are right. Correct, the Docs project is switching to CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-October/msg1.html -- Paul W. Frieldshttp://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: [publican-list] Adjusting copyright information
On 10/06/2009 02:46 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 02:14:12PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: On 10/06/2009 02:01 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: We need this license to be compatible with inclusion in works produced by Fedora Docs, and in works that incorporate content from the Fedora wiki, right? If CC0 can coexist peacefully in that role with the new CC licensing used in both those cases, it does seem like the best contender. Assuming that the CC licensing is CC-BY-SA (Attribution Share-Alike), right? I've asked Red Hat Legal here, just to make sure my instincts are right. Correct, the Docs project is switching to CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-October/msg1.html Yeah, neither I nor Red Hat Legal sees any problem with using the CC-Zero license in conjunction with CC-BY-SA, as described previously in this thread. ~spot ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
