----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Brockmeier" jzb@redhat.com To: "marketing >> Fedora Marketing team" marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:42:03 AM Subject: Copyright Submission Proposal
Hey all,
To streamline this whole thing, can we just agree to publish all content on the magazine (and ask authors to agree) on a single Creative Commons license?
#1: Doesn't the FPCA provide for this anyway, in the absence of some standardized agreement? It seems like a lot of overhead in terms of keeping track of who has agreed to publish under those terms. It's either a new FAS group where people have agreed to a license, or revalidating existing fas groups, or... just checking as we already do to make sure people have signed the FPCA. (I assume that Magazine is hooked up to FAS in some fashion.)
I would *personally* prefer the most restrictive of the CC licenses (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0):
#2: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 is listed in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing as a license that isn't acceptable for Fedora. I realize you're citing 4.0 here, and we don't have guidance on 4.0 in the wiki, but I have to imagine it's not going to be much of a change. The NC part is still NC... as you said, it's the most restrictive, and at least in my opinion, restrictiveness isn't exactly freedom-enabling :)
Copied the legal list for love and guidance.
-Robyn
But I'd accept most of the CC licenses.
Thoughts, comments, flames?
Best,
jzb
Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst jzb@redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/ -- marketing mailing list marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Robyn Bergeron rbergero@redhat.com wrote:
I would *personally* prefer the most restrictive of the CC licenses (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0):
#2: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 is listed in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensingas a license that isn't acceptable for Fedora. I realize you're citing 4.0 here, and we don't have guidance on 4.0 in the wiki, but I have to imagine it's not going to be much of a change. The NC part is still NC... as you said, it's the most restrictive, and at least in my opinion, restrictiveness isn't exactly freedom-enabling :)
As mentioned on the marketing list earlier, the Red Hat legal team wrote terms of use for us, which croberts thinks must have gotten deleted in a migration/upgrade. But they specify Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/("CC-BY-SA").
Ruth
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ruth Suehle" rsuehle@gmail.com To: "Robyn Bergeron" rbergero@redhat.com Cc: "Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier" jzb@redhat.com, "Fedora Marketing team" marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org, legal@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:59:27 AM Subject: Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Copyright Submission Proposal
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Robyn Bergeron rbergero@redhat.com wrote:
I would *personally* prefer the most restrictive of the CC licenses (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0):
#2: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 is listed in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensingas a license that isn't acceptable for Fedora. I realize you're citing 4.0 here, and we don't have guidance on 4.0 in the wiki, but I have to imagine it's not going to be much of a change. The NC part is still NC... as you said, it's the most restrictive, and at least in my opinion, restrictiveness isn't exactly freedom-enabling :)
As mentioned on the marketing list earlier, the Red Hat legal team wrote terms of use for us, which croberts thinks must have gotten deleted in a migration/upgrade. But they specify Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/("CC-BY-SA").
Yes, and it's useful to have those published on the site so that readers understand the terms under which can reuse/remix the content. I think Joe was coming a bit more from the "contribution" angle, though of course the contribute and use terms need to line up.
So we def. need to get the terms of use back on - and make sure that we're verifying somehow that people submitting content are aware of the license under which they're submitting or have signed the FPCA or etc.
IANAL, and all that jazz.
-robyn
Ruth
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 02:14:40PM -0400, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
[Ruth wrote:]
As mentioned on the marketing list earlier, the Red Hat legal team wrote terms of use for us, which croberts thinks must have gotten deleted in a migration/upgrade. But they specify Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/("CC-BY-SA").
Yes, and it's useful to have those published on the site so that readers understand the terms under which can reuse/remix the content. I think Joe was coming a bit more from the "contribution" angle, though of course the contribute and use terms need to line up.
So we def. need to get the terms of use back on - and make sure that we're verifying somehow that people submitting content are aware of the license under which they're submitting or have signed the FPCA or etc.
This is for fedoramagazine.org? (When I get a moment I'll look at the archives for the marketing list.) I see a legal note in the footer that is reminiscent of the same for opensource.com.
The terms of use for opensource.com were recently revised to make CC BY-SA 4.0 the default 'Red Hat original content' license for content on that site, FWIW. One nice thing about the 4.0 license is it eliminates the need for the passive-aggressive moral rights clause waiver, but that is baked into the FPCA. The FPCA does provide for a mechanism for designating a 'Later Default License' though. The Later Default License has to be chosen from the list of currently-acceptable licenses for Fedora.
- RF
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.comwrote:
This is for fedoramagazine.org? (When I get a moment I'll look at the archives for the marketing list.) I see a legal note in the footer that is reminiscent of the same for opensource.com.
Yes, to summarize what happened on this thread earlier in the day, I worked with Amanda Newby to create a footer and terms of use that were based on the ones we used for opensource.com. At some point in a migration or upgrade or something, they both evaporated and were replaced with "Copyright Fedora Magazine," which obviously needed to be fixed. But if osdc has switched up to CC 4, maybe we should revisit for FM as well?
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 02:29:39PM -0400, Ruth Suehle wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
This is for fedoramagazine.org? (When I get a moment I'll look at the archives for the marketing list.) I see a legal note in the footer that is reminiscent of the same for opensource.com.Yes, to summarize what happened on this thread earlier in the day, I worked with Amanda Newby to create a footer and terms of use that were based on the ones we used for opensource.com. At some point in a migration or upgrade or something, they both evaporated and were replaced with "Copyright Fedora Magazine," which obviously needed to be fixed.
Not necessarily so obvious... In fact, in honor of the very late Russell Johnson it might be appropriate to avoid any tendency to use the traditional 'Gilligan's Island copyright' that still appears on fedoraproject.org. I'm even willing to write an article about that. :)
But if osdc has switched up to CC 4, maybe we should revisit for FM as well?
Sure, given that things have evaporated maybe we can use that serendipitous event to take another look at all this. There are things in the opensource.com legalese that are arguably a bit out of place for this website (e.g. some reference to login accounts which do not seem to exist for fedoramagazine.org, other stuff as well).
- RF
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 02:29:39PM -0400, Ruth Suehle wrote:
Yes, to summarize what happened on this thread earlier in the day, I worked with Amanda Newby to create a footer and terms of use that were based on the ones we used for opensource.com. At some point in a migration or upgrade or something, they both evaporated and were replaced with "Copyright Fedora Magazine," which obviously needed to be fixed. But if osdc has switched up to CC 4, maybe we should revisit for FM as well?
Ruth, I notice that many opensource.com articles have a little CC-BY-SA logo at the bottom. Are *you* using the Wordpress license plugin (as in https://fedorahosted.org/marketing-team/ticket/159 which started all this)?
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 06:13:00PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 02:29:39PM -0400, Ruth Suehle wrote:
Yes, to summarize what happened on this thread earlier in the day, I worked with Amanda Newby to create a footer and terms of use that were based on the ones we used for opensource.com. At some point in a migration or upgrade or something, they both evaporated and were replaced with "Copyright Fedora Magazine," which obviously needed to be fixed. But if osdc has switched up to CC 4, maybe we should revisit for FM as well?
Ruth, I notice that many opensource.com articles have a little CC-BY-SA logo at the bottom. Are *you* using the Wordpress license plugin (as in https://fedorahosted.org/marketing-team/ticket/159 which started all this)?
Just to bring up some ancient history, I believe Fedora Legal determined that the terms applicable to the CC logos were inconsistent with Fedora legal policies. I'm not sure whether that view was revised or whether it even applies to Fedora Magazine.
- RF
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 01:55:44PM -0400, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Brockmeier" jzb@redhat.com To: "marketing >> Fedora Marketing team" marketing@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:42:03 AM Subject: Copyright Submission Proposal
Hey all,
To streamline this whole thing, can we just agree to publish all content on the magazine (and ask authors to agree) on a single Creative Commons license?
#1: Doesn't the FPCA provide for this anyway, in the absence of some standardized agreement?
It seems like a lot of overhead in terms of keeping track of who has agreed to publish under those terms. It's either a new FAS group where people have agreed to a license, or revalidating existing fas groups, or... just checking as we already do to make sure people have signed the FPCA. (I assume that Magazine is hooked up to FAS in some fashion.)
If this is a hooked-up-to-FAS thing covered by the FPCA (which seems to be the case but someone tell me if that's wrong or dubious), then yes, the default license is a Creative Commons license (more precisely, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license along with our time-honored passive-aggressive "waiver of the right to enforce, and an agreement not to assert, Section 4d of CC-BY-SA against the Fedora Community, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law" along with "a grant of additional copyright permission to distribute or make available to the public a copy of a GPL-Covered Derivative of the Contribution under the terms of the applicable version of the GPL, with no conditions of CC-BY-SA that would be treated as "further restrictions" within the meaning of the applicable version of the GPL surviving such distribution with respect to that copy.").
I should note that the FPCA is designed to be consistent with individual choice of non-default licenses. However, I think it would be odd as a policy matter to allow NC-ND as an explicit licensing choice.
I would *personally* prefer the most restrictive of the CC licenses (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0):
#2: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 is listed in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing as a license that isn't acceptable for Fedora. I realize you're citing 4.0 here, and we don't have guidance on 4.0 in the wiki, but I have to imagine it's not going to be much of a change. The NC part is still NC... as you said, it's the most restrictive, and at least in my opinion, restrictiveness isn't exactly freedom-enabling :)
With the caveat that I'm hearing about this for the first time and completely out of context, the NC-ND proposal actually seems worse than going back to the horrific days of the Open Publication License. :)
Regarding the 4.0 series, this is something that should be looked at. My general impression is that the 4.0 CC licenses are an improvement over the 3.0 series.
- RF
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.comwrote:
With the caveat that I'm hearing about this for the first time and completely out of context, the NC-ND proposal actually seems worse than going back to the horrific days of the Open Publication License. :)
I couldn't agree more.
-- Jared Smith
-
Jared K. Smith -
Matthew Miller -
Richard Fontana -
Robyn Bergeron -
Ruth Suehle