On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 19:09 -0700, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 15:10 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > > > IIRC, part of the question was what license the "code" involved in the > > website fell under. That is does the css and templates for the websites > > also fall under the OPL? > > Exactly the point of this thread. The *content* is under the OPL. The > markup around just the content is probably covered by that OPL. But the > rest of the site (CSS, Python, TurboGears, HTML, etc.) has not been > licensed. It is, however, a contribution, so is covered at a minimum by > the CLA. > > Do we have the right to license all those contributions at this point? > That is, without the permission of the contributors? Before we worry about that question, do we still have access to all the contributors in question, and can we get them to agree to an appropriate license? The OPL may be poorly suited to code, but certainly we should be able to get people to agree to something functional like the GPLv2+. And this should serve as a reminder that when originating any sort of code it's a good idea to declare a license for it! ;-) -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
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
