On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 07:12 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Brett > Smith from FSF in a offline discussion pointed that we don't explicitly > define the licensing for documentation. We need to make that clear. This is definitely a case of answers being present, but not on the page that matters. In this consolidation, let's look at moving some/all of the licensing discussion from the DocsProject namespace to either the Legal or FAQ namespaces: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/Licensing/FAQ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/Licensing/Discussion http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/Licensing/StepsToOPL Maybe the background information should remain where it is (under a newly minted DocsProject/Licensing page that doesn't exist), and the FAQ can move to a new Legal/FAQ page. I do think we should keep the legal FAQs separate from the main FAQ; we can just have one or several deep links from FAQ to Legal/FAQ. - Karsten -- Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41 ////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
