Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481
------- Additional Comments From jfearn@redhat.com 2008-02-07 20:03 EST ------- (In reply to comment #90)
Curious as to why the GFDL is being used for the -docs? Of course, this is not a Fedora document, and the license choice is at the discretion of the upstream. But if you ever wanted Fedora to publish the how-to documentation included in this package, it needs to be under the OPL without restrictions. If you want to leave that concern for the future, Red Hat (as the copyright holder) can always relicense or dual license. But since you are addressing the licensing in the -brand packages, thought you might want to handle this one at the same time.
The default license, GFDL, was chosen because the brand packages each use a different free(ish) license and I thought adding one more free license to the mix couldn't hurt :)
My method was to pick one of the "Good Licenses" from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-19fc3ef10add085a28cb06784dc34ef... that wasn't covered by any of the brand packages.
The docs in this package use the default brand & license, thus they get the GFDL.
I'd like to change the default license to Creative Commons Share-Alike (CC-SA) v3.0 as it's the only documentation license I could find that is accepted as free by Debian, and so would enable the widest distribution of this package. See http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses