Licensing directions for Fedora content

[Karsten Wade]

On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 03:30:26AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Paul W. Frields wrote:
 
> > We should not make this effort without communicating with our
> > compatriots in Red Hat Documentation.  They moved to the OPL to match
> > our requirements so it would only be fair to coordinate with them.
> 
> IIRC this change was driven by Red Hat Legal.  What does Red Hat legal
> say now?

As I said separately, the original drive was to match up with Red
Hat's licensing.  Spot said RHT Legal would prefer us to use the
CC-BY-SA, which is welcome news to me.  Let's hear back from Spot on
this question for Legal:

  "Is there any reason Fedora Documentation cannot dual-license or
  relicense all Fedora content including the wiki and
  fedoraproject.org under the CC-BY-SA?"

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener
http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
AD0E0C41
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/docs/attachments/20090406/f083845f/attachment.bin