Proposal: end Gilligan's Island copyright notices in Fedora docs

[Eric H. Christensen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:07:29PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 04:14:32PM -0400, Pamela Chestek wrote:
> > As pointed out by others, for those using content under the CC-BY-SA license we
> > should state clearly somewhere how we would like the attribution.  
> 
> This is already done in the default Fedora docs CC BY-SA notice by
> designating the Fedora Project as the "Attribution Party" (a term used
> in CC BY-SA 3.0). I suppose we could be clearer about what that
> actually means.

Well, it doesn't actually say *how* we want the attribution.  As Spot pointed out to me attribution could be in the form of a "thank you" on a post card mailed to me.  I'm okay with the *who* but saying we want our attribution to be in the form of text within the work should be written somewhere, IMO.
 
> > I also agree with Richard that we should carve out the copyright in the logo
> > from any license grant.
> 
> Yes, the original intent of the current notice language was to
> indicate that but I think it can be made clearer. 
> 
> The entire legal notice actually needs to be revisited because of the
> FPCA too (I assume contributors to docs are typically in cla-done or
> whatever it's called). The idea of Red Hat being "the licensor of this
> document" may have made sense under the old Fedora CLA regime but I
> think it does not make sense under the FPCA (because the inbound
> content license is now CC BY-SA by default).

Yes, all Docs contributors have signed the CLA and now the FPCA.

- --Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

iF0EAREIAAYFAk4FUYwACgkQU03aaJDMNEUBOAD2MxeTAZdzVaI2GYeA4qGKwIpy
1enjxpSdYEkiRjWDsQD/baAiao37hwTRiskDK4IMK4MgGfglEL7R2vnvbUp2jNE=
=+D5M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----