[Fedora-legal-list] Request for Comments: Fedora Project Contributor Agreement Draft (Replacement for Fedora Individual Contributor License Agreement)

[inode0]

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 09:50:07AM -0500, inode0 wrote:
>> While not as common, something like the GNU All-Permissive License
>> seems like it might match your stated goals better in this case and is
>> really quite similar in spirit to the MIT License selected for code.
>> It isn't really a general content license but is intended for what is
>> commonly understood to be documentation included with code.
>
> I think we considered that one briefly, and it's worth considering
> again. The only drawback is that it is not a well-known and
> widely-used license like the MIT license (the modern variant) is, or
> like CC-BY-SA is. It would avoid the possible problem you have pointed
> to.
>
> There's also an argument that the Creative Commons licenses are better
> for some kinds of creative content because they explicitly talk about
> public display and public performance rights, but perhaps that's more
> of a theoretical benefit in this context.

In all the cases where the content is not bundled with code I think
the CC-BY-SA license is a superb choice, so I did not mean to suggest
swapping it for the permissive license I mentioned except possibly in
the case of bundling with code already covered by a different copyleft
license. The MIT license used for code could also be used in such
cases without problems I believe (and that would be the default if all
such bundlings are defined as code by the FPCA which I'm just too
dense to discern).

I am happy to leave that in the capable hands sorting through these issues now.

Thanks,
John