4:08 a.m.
Related to something we've discussed:
"Wikipedia drops GNU in favor of Creative Commons license"
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&a...
--
Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener
http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
AD0E0C41
4:19 a.m.
On 05/26/2009 02:38 PM, Karsten Wade wrote:
Related to something we've discussed:
"Wikipedia drops GNU in favor of Creative Commons license"
So, can Fedora Docs and Fedora on the whole switch to Creative Commons
SA license from OPL? There doesn't seem to be any real blockers to the
move.
Rahul
1:03 p.m.
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 02:49:05PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 05/26/2009 02:38 PM, Karsten Wade wrote:
> Related to something we've discussed:
>
> "Wikipedia drops GNU in favor of Creative Commons license"
So, can Fedora Docs and Fedora on the whole switch to Creative Commons
SA license from OPL? There doesn't seem to be any real blockers to the
move.
If we get consensus on this list to switch from OPL to CC-BY-SA, then
I'll take the word to the Board. Not that I think we need approval,
per se, but a simple heads up is a good idea. :)
Too late to do it for F11, though. We could just queue it up as a
feature for F12?
As for the rest of the content in the project ... I would think others
would accept Docs decision, but I think a general discussion on
fedora-advisory-board is the best way to go to ensure we air out any
concerns, etc.
The OPL has served us very well for a long time, I'm sad to see us
move from it, but at this point the writing is clear. We gain a lot
by going with a proper CC license.
Anyway, sad as I am, I'd be happy to take on this task, if we have
consensus. I'll include working with CreativeCommons.org to get us a
splash of attention for it, etc.
- Karsten, working on an "Opus for the OPL"
--
Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener
http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
AD0E0C41
1:07 p.m.
On 05/26/2009 11:33 PM, Karsten Wade wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 02:49:05PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 05/26/2009 02:38 PM, Karsten Wade wrote:
>
>> Related to something we've discussed:
>>
>> "Wikipedia drops GNU in favor of Creative Commons license"
>
> So, can Fedora Docs and Fedora on the whole switch to Creative Commons
> SA license from OPL? There doesn't seem to be any real blockers to the
> move.
If we get consensus on this list to switch from OPL to CC-BY-SA, then
I'll take the word to the Board. Not that I think we need approval,
per se, but a simple heads up is a good idea. :)
Anyone opposing a license move, please let us know, now.
Rahul
1:23 p.m.
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 14:03, Karsten Wade <kwade(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 02:49:05PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 05/26/2009 02:38 PM, Karsten Wade wrote:
>
> > Related to something we've discussed:
> >
> > "Wikipedia drops GNU in favor of Creative Commons license"
>
> So, can Fedora Docs and Fedora on the whole switch to Creative Commons
> SA license from OPL? There doesn't seem to be any real blockers to the
> move.
If we get consensus on this list to switch from OPL to CC-BY-SA, then
I'll take the word to the Board. Not that I think we need approval,
per se, but a simple heads up is a good idea. :)
Too late to do it for F11, though. We could just queue it up as a
feature for F12?
As for the rest of the content in the project ... I would think others
would accept Docs decision, but I think a general discussion on
fedora-advisory-board is the best way to go to ensure we air out any
concerns, etc.
The OPL has served us very well for a long time, I'm sad to see us
move from it, but at this point the writing is clear. We gain a lot
by going with a proper CC license.
Anyway, sad as I am, I'd be happy to take on this task, if we have
consensus. I'll include working with CreativeCommons.org to get us a
splash of attention for it, etc.
- Karsten, working on an "Opus for the OPL"
--
Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener
http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
AD0E0C41
--
fedora-docs-list mailing list
fedora-docs-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
WORKSFORME
Would this include the wiki in addition to the documents we produce?
Eric
1:30 p.m.
The OPL has served us very well for a long time, I'm sad to see
us
move from it, but at this point the writing is clear. We gain a lot
by going with a proper CC license.
Pardon my noobness, but what is it that we gain? I don't have any
objections to changing per se, but I'd like to know what the argument
is before I support it. :-)
BC
--
Ben Cotton
1:35 p.m.
On 05/27/2009 12:00 AM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> The OPL has served us very well for a long time, I'm sad to
see us
> move from it, but at this point the writing is clear. We gain a lot
> by going with a proper CC license.
>
Pardon my noobness, but what is it that we gain? I don't have any
objections to changing per se, but I'd like to know what the argument
is before I support it. :-)
Discussions starting at
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2009-April/msg00061.html
Short version: CC BY SA is a much more widely used license allowing for
more sharing of content and it is better known and understood as well.
Rahul
2:45 p.m.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:05:54AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 05/27/2009 12:00 AM, Ben Cotton wrote:
>> The OPL has served us very well for a long time, I'm sad to see us
>> move from it, but at this point the writing is clear. We gain a lot
>> by going with a proper CC license.
>>
> Pardon my noobness, but what is it that we gain? I don't have any
> objections to changing per se, but I'd like to know what the argument
> is before I support it. :-)
Discussions starting at
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2009-April/msg00061.html
Short version: CC BY SA is a much more widely used license allowing for
more sharing of content and it is better known and understood as well.
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. :-)
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
2:56 p.m.
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
3:01 p.m.
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 06:47:37PM -0400, John J. McDonough wrote:
So, what do we gain by going to CC? What do we loose? I have heard
some
folks on Planet objecting to CC for some purposes, but I would need to go
back and re-read what their problem was and in what context.
To make one thing clear, we are really talking about (IMO) the CC BY
SA, 3.0 I reckon. This should make sure we don't *lose* any features
of the OPL in the switch.
Right now the OPL locks us in to a corner where we can only share
content with other OPL sources. That would be fine if it were a
widely used license, which it is not.
The CC BY SA is very widely used. Red Hat Legal weighed in previously
that they prefer this license. My mistaken(?) concerns in the past
about warranty clauses are all covered.
If we make enough noise and a proper cut-off date, we should prevent
any problems from anyone who has based documents on the OPL-licensed
content.
I'm not sure that we will find as much content to draw *in* to Fedora,
but we make our work here much more widely relevant. For example, if
someone wanted to maintain a brief installation of Fedora article on
Wikipedia or their website, they could source as much as needed from a
CC BY SA licensed Fedora Installation Guide. The BY assures us that
they'll like back to the truly canonical source.
- Karsten
--
Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener
http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
AD0E0C41
3:04 p.m.
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 16:01, Karsten Wade <kwade(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 06:47:37PM -0400, John J. McDonough wrote:
> So, what do we gain by going to CC? What do we loose? I have heard some
> folks on Planet objecting to CC for some purposes, but I would need to go
> back and re-read what their problem was and in what context.
To make one thing clear, we are really talking about (IMO) the CC BY
SA, 3.0 I reckon. This should make sure we don't *lose* any features
of the OPL in the switch.
Right now the OPL locks us in to a corner where we can only share
content with other OPL sources. That would be fine if it were a
widely used license, which it is not.
The CC-BY-SA license says further works would have be shared under the
same OR SIMILAR license which would definitely be more flexible for
further works.
The CC BY SA is very widely used. Red Hat Legal weighed in previously
that they prefer this license. My mistaken(?) concerns in the past
about warranty clauses are all covered.
If we make enough noise and a proper cut-off date, we should prevent
any problems from anyone who has based documents on the OPL-licensed
content.
I'm not sure that we will find as much content to draw *in* to Fedora,
but we make our work here much more widely relevant. For example, if
someone wanted to maintain a brief installation of Fedora article on
Wikipedia or their website, they could source as much as needed from a
CC BY SA licensed Fedora Installation Guide. The BY assures us that
they'll like back to the truly canonical source.
- Karsten
+1 from me.
4:29 p.m.
New subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Wikipedia license change
On 05/26/2009 03:56 PM, Karsten Wade wrote:
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.
I know Richard reads fedora-legal-list, so I'll wait for him to chime
in, but in the past, he's expressed that he would very much like for us
to move the wiki from OPL to CC-BY-SA.
~spot
5:47 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karsten Wade" <kwade(a)redhat.com>
To: <fedora-docs-list(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia license change
> > "Wikipedia drops GNU in favor of Creative Commons
license"
>
> So, can Fedora Docs and Fedora on the whole switch to Creative Commons
> SA license from OPL? There doesn't seem to be any real blockers to the
> move.
If we get consensus on this list to switch from OPL to CC-BY-SA,
then
I'll take the word to the Board. Not that I think we need approval,
per se, but a simple heads up is a good idea. :)
[--clip--]
The OPL has served us very well for a long time, I'm sad to see
us
move from it, but at this point the writing is clear. We gain a lot
by going with a proper CC license.
So, what do we gain by going to CC? What do we loose? I have heard some
folks on Planet objecting to CC for some purposes, but I would need to go
back and re-read what their problem was and in what context.
--McD
10:17 p.m.
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:01 PM, Karsten Wade <kwade(a)redhat.com> wrote:
If we make enough noise and a proper cut-off date, we should prevent
any problems from anyone who has based documents on the OPL-licensed
content.
This is the only area I see an issue, but lots of publication should keep
that to a very manageable problem. Blog posts and big horns or whatever we
need.
Is the OPL used by very many people anymore anyway? Even the people that
wrote it recomend using a CC license [1]. I am all for the move.
[1]: http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/329
7:47 p.m.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 05:17:06AM +0200, Zach Oglesby wrote:
Is the OPL used by very many people anymore anyway? Even the people that
wrote it recomend using a CC license [1]. I am all for the move.
[1]: http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/329
Wow, that was a cogent argument. I'd heard in passing of this
statement, and it's a bit shaming to see it's just a shade over two
years old. 'Bout time we caught up!
Seems like we have a consensus. In the meeting we just assigned
these:
quaid => legal + content services + bug reports to the Publican Fedora
package (when that happens)
ianweller=> will talk to Creative Commons and work with Jack + Fedora
Marketing
ke4qqq => will make/own the feature page
cheers - Karsten
--
Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener
http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
AD0E0C41
9:46 a.m.
New subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Wikipedia license change
On Tue, 26 May 2009 17:29:20 -0400
"Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I know Richard reads fedora-legal-list, so I'll wait for him to
chime
in, but in the past, he's expressed that he would very much like for
us to move the wiki from OPL to CC-BY-SA.
Such a decision should be made by Fedora qua Fedora, consistent with
Fedora's licensing guidelines and general rationality (which is true of
the current situation with the use of the OPL and would be true if
the license of choice were CC-BY-SA instead).
FWIW, my personal view is that switching from OPL to CC-BY-SA makes a
lot of sense. In my opinion, the OPL is now a fairly dated license with
some flaws. That alone isn't a reason not to use it, for a content
author who happens to like it, but the availability of CC-BY-SA shows
that there is a license with the same desirable policies (from Fedora's
perspective) that is the result of more careful legal drafting. As
others have pointed out, CC-BY-SA is today a more widely used license,
has a track record of responsible revisions, and the author of the OPL
himself would seem to be in favor of OPL users moving on to CC
licenses.
I've heard one or two people in the Fedora docs community say that
CC-BY-SA permits combination, or relicensing, under a broad set of
licenses with similar policies including the OPL. That is actually not
correct (at least for version 3.0 of CC-BY-SA). CC-BY-SA 3.0 says:
You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the
terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with
the same License Elements as this License; (iii) a Creative Commons
jurisdiction license (either this or a later license version) that
contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g.,
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 US)); (iv) a Creative Commons Compatible
License.
A "Creative Commons Compatible License" is defined as
a license that is listed at
http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses that has been approved
by Creative Commons as being essentially equivalent to this License,
including, at a minimum, because that license: (i) contains terms
that have the same purpose, meaning and effect as the License
Elements of this License; and, (ii) explicitly permits the
relicensing of adaptations of works made available under that license
under this License or a Creative Commons jurisdiction license with
the same License Elements as this License.
However, http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses says that "to
date, Creative Commons has not approved any licenses for
compatibility", and I don't think the OPL would meet the given standard
anyway.
--
Richard E. Fontana
Open Source Licensing and Patent Counsel
Red Hat, Inc.
2:31 p.m.
New subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Wikipedia license change
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:46, Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
However, http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses says that
"to
date, Creative Commons has not approved any licenses for
compatibility", and I don't think the OPL would meet the given standard
anyway.
--
Richard E. Fontana
Open Source Licensing and Patent Counsel
Red Hat, Inc.
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the information. What does this mean for current works
that are now downstream if we change the license? Would we have to
give general permission to those works or are they still covered
because they met the requirements of the original license?
Thanks,
Eric
Docs Project Lead
3:42 p.m.
New subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Wikipedia license change
On Thu, 28 May 2009 15:31:13 -0400
Eric Christensen <eric(a)christensenplace.us> wrote:
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the information. What does this mean for current works
that are now downstream if we change the license? Would we have to
give general permission to those works or are they still covered
because they met the requirements of the original license?
Hi Eric,
Not sure if this is what you are asking, but: We can (and probably
would want to) extend permission to cover all past works that have been
released. This would not revoke the original permissions given under
the OPL, as those permissions are permanent, but it would supplement
them (i.e., past works would thereafter become dual-licensed under OPL
and CC-BY-SA).
If some Fedora work W licensed under OPL is modified downstream by A
(W'), and assume that the OPL requires A to license W' including its
changes under OPL: A can relicense W' under CC-BY-SA by agreeing to
relicense its changes under CC-BY-SA, but otherwise a downstream
recipient of W' receives it under OPL only.
- RF
9:36 a.m.
New subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Wikipedia license change
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 16:42, Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 15:31:13 -0400
Eric Christensen <eric(a)christensenplace.us> wrote:
> Hi Richard,
> Thanks for the information. What does this mean for current works
> that are now downstream if we change the license? Would we have to
> give general permission to those works or are they still covered
> because they met the requirements of the original license?
Hi Eric,
Not sure if this is what you are asking, but: We can (and probably
would want to) extend permission to cover all past works that have been
released. This would not revoke the original permissions given under
the OPL, as those permissions are permanent, but it would supplement
them (i.e., past works would thereafter become dual-licensed under OPL
and CC-BY-SA).
If some Fedora work W licensed under OPL is modified downstream by A
(W'), and assume that the OPL requires A to license W' including its
changes under OPL: A can relicense W' under CC-BY-SA by agreeing to
relicense its changes under CC-BY-SA, but otherwise a downstream
recipient of W' receives it under OPL only.
- RF
Richard,
That's exactly what I was asking about. Thanks!
Eric
10:29 a.m.
New subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Wikipedia license change
Just to summarize my concerns to the f-d-l...
My concern with changing licenses is what happens to the
already-downstream derivatives of our works since we are going to
change the rules. I think we need to look at how to move this forward
in a way that isn't going to leave those works stranded and possibly
in violation of the new license.
Karsten suggested that we don't change the license on old documents,
we dual-license current works, and new works fall under the new
license. This makes sense to me but I feel that at some point we need
a way to transition the dual-licensed works to just the new license.
I'm not sure the best way to do this but for some of the guides we may
never loose the old license.
Eric
11:40 a.m.
New subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Wikipedia license change
On 05/29/2009 08:59 PM, Eric Christensen wrote:
Just to summarize my concerns to the f-d-l...
My concern with changing licenses is what happens to the
already-downstream derivatives of our works since we are going to
change the rules. I think we need to look at how to move this forward
in a way that isn't going to leave those works stranded and possibly
in violation of the new license.
Who are the downstream users?
Rahul
12:06 p.m.
New subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Wikipedia license change
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:40, Rahul Sundaram
<sundaram(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On 05/29/2009 08:59 PM, Eric Christensen wrote:
> Just to summarize my concerns to the f-d-l...
>
> My concern with changing licenses is what happens to the
> already-downstream derivatives of our works since we are going to
> change the rules. I think we need to look at how to move this forward
> in a way that isn't going to leave those works stranded and possibly
> in violation of the new license.
Who are the downstream users?
Rahul
We don't know. Anyone could have taken our words and used them,
according to the "old" license, without telling us.
Eric
12:18 p.m.
New subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Wikipedia license change
On 05/29/2009 10:36 PM, Eric Christensen wrote:
We don't know. Anyone could have taken our words and used them,
according to the "old" license, without telling us.
We would be doing a announcement highlighting this fact if we go ahead
with the change. Downstreams would be responsible for checking the
license of the newly provided content. Similar to how we check the
license on new upstream releases when we incorporate them. Massive
projects like wikipedia have changed their license recently. I don't see
this as a huge issue at all but maybe I just haven't understood your
concerns properly.
Rahul
5444
days inactive
5447
days old
22 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Ben Cotton -
Eric Christensen -
John J. McDonough -
Karsten Wade -
Paul W. Frields -
Rahul Sundaram -
Richard Fontana -
Tom Callaway -
Zach Oglesby