On Fri, 23 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 10:29 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > 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. > > > > > TurboGears apps are all licensed although not all of them have the > > license information in all the source files: > > Thankfully each of these projects did as Paul said, get the licensing > straight from the start. > > Figuring this out is going to be a great geek research project: > > * Sort through commits to /cvs/fedora and the new fedorahosted.org git > space to find out all committers > > * Look through f-websites-l for precedent in terms of licensing; was > this ever discussed and settled? > > While the original sites were all (C) Red Hat, Inc., this new stuff has > multiple copyright owners, and is much more pervasive than > fedora.redhat.com was. > > Ultimately, we're protected by the CLA in terms of usage, but it makes > it hard to make our parts and pieces into an upstream others can consume > and contribute to. No matter the pain, it is probably worth it to do > the research and get agreements from all contributors. > Doesn't the CLA allow us to re-license contributions that came in from start to finish by people who have signed the CLA? -Mike _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
