https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ianweller/Creative_Commons_press_release
These are really crappy. Help make them better. Maybe we should combine them, I don't know.
On 09/01/2009 03:04 AM, Ian Weller wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ianweller/Creative_Commons_press_release
These are really crappy. Help make them better. Maybe we should combine them, I don't know.
Afaik, we specifically picked the "unported" version rather than the U.S specific version. Am I wrong?
Rahul
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 03:04:21 +0530 Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 09/01/2009 03:04 AM, Ian Weller wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ianweller/Creative_Commons_press_release
These are really crappy. Help make them better. Maybe we should combine them, I don't know.
Afaik, we specifically picked the "unported" version rather than the U.S specific version. Am I wrong?
You are correct, sir.
- RF
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 05:44:12PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 03:04:21 +0530 Rahul Sundaram sundaram@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 09/01/2009 03:04 AM, Ian Weller wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ianweller/Creative_Commons_press_release
These are really crappy. Help make them better. Maybe we should combine them, I don't know.
Afaik, we specifically picked the "unported" version rather than the U.S specific version. Am I wrong?
You are correct, sir.
And now, the mantra of the wiki:
"Fix it!" :)
-- Your Wiki Czar
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 04:34:39PM -0500, Ian Weller wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ianweller/Creative_Commons_press_release
These are really crappy. Help make them better. Maybe we should combine them, I don't know.
I threw some stuff in to highlight that our content is more than distro-focused.
Pretty good stuff. It's short, but why be more?
Marketing might want to add some fluff, which is OK, too.
- Karsten
On 09/04/2009 07:57 PM, Karsten Wade wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 04:34:39PM -0500, Ian Weller wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ianweller/Creative_Commons_press_release
Marketing might want to add some fluff, which is OK, too.
Marketing fluff added. ;)
How is this press release getting released, when, and where-to? Sorry I haven't been able to keep up with this discussion previously.
Specifically, I added:
* The standard "this is a press release!" headers ("FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE", location/date before the body text)
* A headline (Fedora Project relicenses content to CC-BY-SA)
* A boilerplate snip of org info at the bottom, yanked from http://fedoraproject.org/ (do we have a more official one to use for press releases? I couldn't find one.)
* A shiny quote from Ian (this just in from IRC)
* A contact info section
* ### at the bottom, which is PRspeak for "end of press release"
(For an example of what a professional press release looks like, see http://www.redhat.com/about/news/prarchive/2009/fedora11.html - you'll see all these elements in there.)
It still needs:
* filling in of contact information at the bottom - Marketing folks, how we want to handle press releases is probably something we want to figure out in general at some point.
* copyediting (I suck at making sure spelling/grammar/etc is 100% correct; my quick pass usually gets things to 90-95%)
* more nice quotes, perhaps from Sparks or quaid or stickster - something like... "This relicensing effort will enable us to $list_of_awesomeness, we'd like to thank $these_people," said $name, $impressive-sounding-title. "$shiny_media_soundbite!"
Docs folks, if you want more help with this, can you shoot us a ticket (https://fedorahosted.org/marketing-team/newticket) and summarize this email thread in the comments so that we have a bit of context?
--Mel
On 09/05/2009 05:27 AM, Karsten Wade wrote:
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 04:34:39PM -0500, Ian Weller wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ianweller/Creative_Commons_press_release
These are really crappy. Help make them better. Maybe we should combine them, I don't know.
I threw some stuff in to highlight that our content is more than distro-focused.
Pretty good stuff. It's short, but why be more?
Marketing might want to add some fluff, which is OK, too.
Added a couple of sentences on why. I would prefer we explicitly list what all is being re-licensed:
* Fedora Project Documentation * Fedora Project wiki
Anything else?
Rahul
What about throwing in something along the lines of:
"The Fedora Project, which has traditionally had among the best documentation around, has recenty been expanding and updating it's documentation, including updated Install and User guides, and a new Security Guide, plus more. This is content that others might well make use of. We realized that our older license would not allow this sharing as well as CC-bySA. We understand that if others can improve their documentation by borrowing part of ours, the entire community benefits. This made the decision to change to something more compatible an obvious one."
Too long, but we should say something like that.
--McD
-
Ian Weller -
John J. McDonough -
Karsten Wade -
Mel Chua -
Rahul Sundaram -
Richard Fontana