Fedora website, Red Hat, copyright notices and FPCA

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 06/29/2011 07:46 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
> I admit that whether the FPCA can be read to govern emails (that is,
> the substantive text of the message, to the extent it's copyrightable)
> to a Fedora mailing list as a 'Contribution' is unclear under the
> FPCA. It was also unclear under the Fedora CLA, though a little less
> unclear. There are multiple ways to clarify this issue if people are
> concerned. 
>
> No one brought this issue up in what I recall were at least a few
> months of public availability of the FPCA draft along with a public
> request for comments.

Yes indeed because intuitively, it didn't strike me that a email would
be considered a contribution under FPCA unless it includes a patch or
something else along those lines.  The notion of a default license is
one that I found disturbing.  This only helps as an example. 

> Just out of curiosity, what terms do you see as applying to your
> emails to Fedora mailing lists? I think if anything the appropriate
> default 'license' would be CC0, apart from any attachment like a
> patch or whatever (i.e. something closer to the intuitive notion of a
> Fedora contribution).

I am not sure a license is necessary beyond fair use.  CC-BY-ND maybe. 
If you publish a opinion piece,  you don't necessarily want people to
remix it.  I think of emails as mini editorials.  Mere redistribution is
fine. 

Rahul