> Here I'd disagree. While for software, folks are happy for
anyone to use
> it as they like. However, for written work, people become protective. It
> is better have something which says "by contributing this piece, you are
> giving Fedora to publish once and republish once by any means". That way
> the author knows exactly what terms they are contributing by.
I'm torn here. I want to believe that protective authors will be
intelligent enough to set licensing terms for their copyrighted works.
From my experience, they're not. It may sound really condescending here,
but if they have the terms already there, they are much happier. The
majority of the times it dictates the scope which they are allowed to
write under and also means that should their work be referenced a few
years later, they have the fallback position of the license restrictions
Also, I don't want to say "these are the terms under which
you give us
these works", because then those protective people just complain and
moan about how they're either too restrictive or too permissive.
Again, my experience says the opposite. People write. I've only had one
instance where an author refused to write the final part of a piece due
to a restriction (and that was mainly as he'd just moved job).
My instinct is to say that the contributing authors have to tell us
license under which we can use their contributions.
100 pieces, 100 licences.. <<shudder>>
Also, I'm not sure that LPM will be okay with using material
CC-BY-SA, for example (which is Free). If I had to guess, I'd say they
would want something with the Non Commercial restriction (and a specific
exclusion for them).
Wouldn't surprise me in the least.
But lets keep in mind that as far as I know, it is not clear where
content for this magazine will come from. Mel, maybe you can shed some
Given this is in the planning stage, an integral part of planning must
include the contributions!
Sie können mich aufreizen und wirklich heiß machen!