On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 01:22:46PM +1000, Ruediger Landmann wrote: > On 10/06/2009 09:47 AM, Jeffrey Fearn wrote: > >Mikhail Gusarov wrote: > >>IANAL, but this can be specified in single file, like > >>Common_Content/common/README: "all the data in this directory is under > >>GFDL", but better check with your legal department. > > > >Rudi is talking with the legal people about this, we expect a > >separate update message shortly. > > Thanks Jeff :) > > Red Hat legal has identified a number of ambiguities around the > licenses involved: specifically, the relationship between the > license of the package against the license of the text in the Common > Content files, against the license of books that users produce that > incorporates that Common Content. > > One particular problem is that as things stand right now, if the > text in Common Content is licensed under the GFDL, this means that > any book that anybody builds in Publican that incorporates that text > must also be licensed under the GFDL (or a compatible license). > This, in turn, creates an immediate incompatibility in any brand > package that loads a legal notice with a different license... > > Legal's solution is that we include a note that explicitly spells > out that whatever license appears between the <legalnotice> tags in > the Legal_Notice.xml file applies only to the books into which it is > pre-loaded, and not the text of the Legal Notice file itself. > Furthermore, they suggest pretty much exactly what you suggested, > Mikhail -- we find as permissive a license as possible for the > Common Content files, and license them under that, separately from > the rest of the contents of the package. > > 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... > > 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. > > Although CC0 is cumbersome (check out the full legal code! [4]), it > seems to do what we need it to do. It's therefore the current > favourite as license of choice for the Common Content files, unless > anyone on the list knows of a similarly broad license with less > legalese? > > > Cheers > > Ruediger > > > [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL > > [2] http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ > > [3] > http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/License-Notices-for-Other-Files.html > > [4] http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
I'm forwarding a copy of this to the fedora-legal-list -- Spot may be able to suggest something appropriate to cover the publican Common Content. 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. -- Paul W. Frields http://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
