[Fedora-legal-list] Wiki page : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_print_magazine_proposal

[Paul]

Hi,

> > > But lets keep in mind that as far as I know, it is not clear where the
> > > content for this magazine will come from. Mel, maybe you can shed some
> > > light here?
> > 
> > Given this is in the planning stage, an integral part of planning must
> > include the contributions!
> 
> The original proposal from Linux Pro Magazine was built around the
> concept of, "We can do all this for Fedora and keep the work load off
> of you."  Mel's approach, rightly IMO, is to consider, "How much of
> this can be done by Fedora contributors, so they can learn from the
> professional magazine staff and have a direct hand in creating this
> magazine."

To me, Mel's idea is far better than the LPM one for a couple of
reasons. The most important is that it is the communities efforts (for
part of it at least) and secondly is that if we wish to continue with
something like this, that we take it as a learning experience with the
knowledge of LPM behind it until we're confident to continue it as it
stands.

> Actually, to be honest, I'd be fine with deciding as a
> magazine editorial team to use one specific license to make eventual
> content freeing easier.

My point exactly - 100 licences, 100 problems.

> What I was thinking was a modified form of the "first publication
> rights" contract:
> 
> * All content is contractually under the CC BY-SA-NC until six months
>   after the publication hits the magazine stands.

Sorry, being dumb here what is BY-SA-NC? A secondary problem with a time
stamp like this is that of back issues and electronic distribution.

> I actually feel that 6 months is too long; I'd prefer 3, so that the
> content can be used in Fedora while it is still highly relevant.  But
> I'm not sure that is fair to LPM, especially if this is the first time
> they've entered into such a contract.  I want to give them enough room
> to feel comfortable about making it work.

As you say, 6 months to justify the investment is probably about right;
they need to see and assess the impact of doing a Fedora special and
while they will have some figures available, if it's anything like how
it's done in the UK, figures are only useful after about 4 months (takes
into account quarterly subscriptions, one offs, back issues et al). 

For the 3 months, would there be a problem with an "updates" issue
detailing the behind the scenes developments for the next version etc?
Besides cost that is...

I'm quite looking forward to seeing the revised proposal tomorrow from
LPM :-)

But before I can see that, the day job ;-)

TTFN

Paul

-- 
Sie können mich aufreizen und wirklich heiß machen!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/attachments/20090906/df341b7e/attachment.sig>