changing content licenses (OPL => CC BY SA)
Eric Christensen
eric at christensenplace.us
Thu Jun 25 22:54:18 UTC 2009
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 18:48 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 06/25/2009 03:22 PM, Karsten Wade wrote:
> > When we went from GFDL to OPL we specifically had to ask everyone
> > because none of the content works were under the Fedora CLA. The
> > stated reasoning at the time iirc was, we wouldn't have to do this
> > check with everyone again if we had to relicense because we had the
> > CLA.
>
> I think the important distinction that I missed was that I thought you
> were only referring to the reference documentation in the separate files
> (e.g. Release Guide), where there are well defined lists of the
> contributors. For the wiki, that task is far too major and we would
> definitely want to leverage the CLA to relicense that content.
>
There is still a problem, though. Most, if not all, of our guides start
on the wiki. I know a lot of information that went into the Security
Guide came from the wiki and thus from various developers.
>
> ~spot
>
Eric
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/docs/attachments/20090625/d1544d65/attachment.bin
More information about the docs
mailing list