-----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-----