Re: [Fedora-legal-list] policy on shipping/using flags
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:08:04PM -0800, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > I recently found that Deluge is using country flags to indicate the > location of bittorrent peers. Flags are cute and nice of course (and a > mental exercise), but are geopolitical hot spots. I don't really have anything to add other than that this seems like a good topic, you've given the scope some good thought. If this is not really on-topic for legal, you could bring it to fedora-advisory-board. What I've always "heard" about why we don't use flags for languages in fact matches what is on wiki/Languages. I always considered it simple respect for the varying opinions in the world, combined with the fact that a language is not the same as a country, so using flags is inaccurate. For a torrent tracker that is in fact tied to a country of origin for the torrent source, the flag makes sense. The upstream has to be willing to keep that updated, though; when a country changes flags, for example. However, is there a source for free-as-in-freedom images for all flags? Is Deluge making their own? - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 pgpTWAY8hgdch.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] xBill legal opinion required
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 02:45:25PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On 2009-02-16 at 14:42:30 -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > >> On 2008-12-26 at 5:50:31 -0500, "Andrea Musuruane" > >> wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> I'd like to now if xBill is suitable for inclusion in Fedora: > >>> > >>> http://www.xbill.org/ > >>> > >>> License, as stated in the man entry, is GPL (no version specified). > >>> > >>> My concerns regard the use of various logos in the game. > >>> > >>> Also note that this game has been packaged until 2001 in Red Hat. > >> > >> Red Hat Legal says this is not acceptable. > > > > Is it because of the artwork? We can get it replaced. > > Well, the issue is that the game is clearly disparaging Microsoft and > its marks. I'm not sure any amount of "artwork" replacement will > overcome that. We don't have any right to redistribute parody?!? - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 pgpIS7WpDRUs9.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] "content" in source tarball
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 02:14:56PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > > That just means that FESCo reserves judgement over what is and is not > acceptable content. For example, the fedora-release-notes package is content. The content provided under /usr/share/doc/ is all packaged. In Fedora 11, the Docs team is working on packages for the Installation Guide, Security Guide, and User Guide, all of which is content. Just FYI. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 pgp26sl7ycusE.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
[Fedora-legal-list] Re: Wikipedia license change
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 03:45:31PM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > Let's make sure we keep our various legal minds roped in. I know that > Spot mentioned Red Hat Legal may be very much in favor of going with > CC BY-SA, so that may a problem solved before we had it. :-) Didn't Richard Fontana weigh in directly on the previous discussion? Regardless, one of the things I'd have to do with this task is coordinate with Red Hat's Content Services team, who just did a re-licensing, and make sure we are copacetic. That will require a double-tap from Legal, approving the Red Hat content relicensing as well as the Fedora. I'll make sure it is explicitly covered instead of just implicitly. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 pgp3cCxdO30JN.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
[Fedora-legal-list] CC BY SA 3.0 unported or ported or ...
I understand there are a few types of CC BY SA 3.0 license, ported and unported. http://monitor.creativecommons.org/Unported Which do we want to use when relicening all Fedora content and as our default license choice (for now)? Or is it really a three-way choice? 1. Ported only 2. Unported only 3. Ported where it exists, otherwise unported Thanks - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 pgpFOSMOxBV4B.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CC BY SA 3.0 unported or ported or ...
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 10:47:28PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: > > > Which do we want to use when relicening all Fedora content and as our > > default license choice (for now)? Or is it really a three-way choice? > > Call me an id10t, but I'm not sure what the differences are. Is it > just that the text of the license is adapted to a specific country's > laws? Or is there something more going on that I'm not sure of??? Yeah, that's my read. Ported have been localized, presumably either in a local language or perhaps even legally vetted ... I'm not clear which. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 pgp8Tg8nq6fBg.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CC BY SA 3.0 unported or ported or ...
Any thoughts about this? On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 07:27:36PM -0700, Karsten Wade wrote: > I understand there are a few types of CC BY SA 3.0 license, ported and > unported. > > http://monitor.creativecommons.org/Unported > > Which do we want to use when relicening all Fedora content and as our > default license choice (for now)? Or is it really a three-way choice? > > 1. Ported only > 2. Unported only > 3. Ported where it exists, otherwise unported > > Thanks - Karsten > -- > Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener > http://quaid.fedorapeople.org > AD0E0C41 -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 pgpKDaZDVA0KW.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] CC BY SA 3.0 unported or ported or ...
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 10:11:39AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > On 07/11/2009 06:43 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: > > Any thoughts about this? > > I'm inclined to agree with Luis. I don't see any benefit to the ported > CC license at this time. Thanks; somehow I missed Luis originak reply as well. Unported it is! - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 pgpjMeP990zGA.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Wiki page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_print_magazine_proposal
On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 10:15:31AM +0100, Paul wrote: > > > But lets keep in mind that as far as I know, it is not clear where the > > content for this magazine will come from. Mel, maybe you can shed some > > light here? > > Given this is in the planning stage, an integral part of planning must > include the contributions! The original proposal from Linux Pro Magazine was built around the concept of, "We can do all this for Fedora and keep the work load off of you." Mel's approach, rightly IMO, is to consider, "How much of this can be done by Fedora contributors, so they can learn from the professional magazine staff and have a direct hand in creating this magazine." That means, as much of the content as we can reasonably get from within the Fedora Project, we will. So, that means that the situation is likely to be a blend of what Spot and Paul are talking about here. The pool of contributors already has more exposure to licensing, for example, and form opinions similar to what Spot is saying. For example, I plan to write for the issue, and I have particular opinions about licensing. :) I prefer (now) to use a CC license. Actually, to be honest, I'd be fine with deciding as a magazine editorial team to use one specific license to make eventual content freeing easier. From my perspective, the core challenge is "NC or not-NC". I think people in the project would prefer to do work that can be reused by Fedora. LPM, as you said, may have different preferences here. What I was thinking was a modified form of the "first publication rights" contract: * All content is contractually under the CC BY-SA-NC until six months after the publication hits the magazine stands. * At that point, the rights holders remove the NC clause permanently so that it can be freely used by Fedora. This gives LPM the commercial protection to make their investment worthwhile, having it sunset about the time that the next version of Fedora Linux comes out. I actually feel that 6 months is too long; I'd prefer 3, so that the content can be used in Fedora while it is still highly relevant. But I'm not sure that is fair to LPM, especially if this is the first time they've entered into such a contract. I want to give them enough room to feel comfortable about making it work. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 pgpjq1U9E927A.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Wiki page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_print_magazine_proposal
On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 05:23:01PM +0100, Paul wrote: > Sorry, being dumb here what is BY-SA-NC? http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Almost-but-not-quite-Free. The copyright holders would agree to remove the NC after X period of time. LPM writers could choose not to remove that; I'm mainly concerned about content where Fedorans own the rights. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 pgp9fe882OfXV.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Fedora magazine
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:20:32PM +0100, Paul wrote: > Hi, > > Did anything come back from LWP over a possible Fedora mag to co-incide > with the release of 12? Discussion on this topic has been ongoing on fedora-marketing-list. I think the current summary is, it was too late for us to put together what we wanted and how we wanted it for F12, and we're working on the F13 idea. You can check those list archives for more details. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 pgpWL3hFSYoGM.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
[Fedora-legal-list] cascading the CC licenses
Some questions about how to reuse/remix CC content in to our wiki and other content locations. Given: our content is now CC BY SA 3.0. What happens when we reuse CC BY content in to our wiki? Is it OK that it turns in to SA after that? Or what does it become? If not, do we have to do something special when mixing CC BY content in? I know we cannot reuse NC content, but what about reuse/remix/redistribution of: * CC BY 3.0 * CC BY SA 2.x * CC BY ND I'm guessing that the no-derivatives content can be redistributed by us, but we don't want to because then we create a mixed work that cannot be free? - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41 pgpj3ISMP2yDo.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
[Fedora-legal-list] Fedora content downstream at Wikipedia
I'm considering the idea[1] of taking (part of) this canonical page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Red_Hat_contributions ... and maintaining it downstream at, e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_software_contributions On the face of it, the source content is the same license as Wikipedia. Maintaining the Wikipedia page as a downstream is as simple as copy + paste, then watch the canonical page and update the downstream page as appropriate. But there is an additional clause in contributing content to Wikipedia, that it be contributed under the GFDL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright#Contributors.27_rights_and_obligations If you contribute text directly to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public for reuse under CC-BY-SA and GFDL (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). If I were the copyright holder for the Fedora content in question, I would just accept that. However, the [[Red Hat contributions]] page on the Fedora wiki is definitely an aggregate work.[2] Interestingly, it appears the vast majority of the contributions are from Red Hat employees. If copyright holder permission is required or preferred, we could obtain it and put a notice on the page that future contributions are going to be relicensed at Wikipedia under ... the GFDL specifically? Yeah, specifics make more sense. How to handle all this? Thanks - Karsten [1] Not being sure about the cultural stance of being @redhat.com and doing this, I've requested help on the subject here: http://iquaid.org/2009/12/14/how-can-we-share-some-love-about-red-hat-with-wikipedia [2] Full history for this page on this wiki: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Hat_contributions&limit=500&action=history There is a copyright history that goes back to the previous wiki. We can obtain that list, if needed. :) -- name: Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Community Gardener team:Red Hat Community Architecture uri: http://quaid.fedorapeople.org gpg: AD0E0C41 pgpgAJY3D2sK4.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
