<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">> IIRC the decision to hold back on the CC-BY-SA licensing was due to the planet inclusion, in the event someone reblogged something that was written as all rights reserved. <br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">Obviously that won't be an issue if all of our articles are new content<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">-Bryan<br></div><span class=""><br></span><div style="margin-left:40px"><span class="">
</span>If I remember properly, the reason we didn't go with a blanket license<br>
was to give ourselves more latitude in running content from independent<br>
writers or other sources where CC-BY-SA (or whatever) might not fit<br>
their needs.<br>
<span class=""></span><br><span class="">
> There may also be a Fedora-wide contribution policy, and we also don't</span><br><span class="">
> want to contradict that.</span><br><span class="">
</span><br><span class="">
</span>There is, although to date I don't think we've mandated that magazine<br>
contributors agree to it. We probably _should_.<br>
<span class=""></span><br></div><div style="margin-left:40px"><span class=""></span></div><br></div></div>