On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen<bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ----- "Robert 'Bob' Jensen" <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Does anyone remember why "CC BY SA" was not chosen over the OPL when >> we went through all this a few years ago? Is this just all part of the >> Creative Commons marketing effort? An effort that is failing for me, >> the idea of a "CC" license is diluted and confused by all the >> different options. It seems today everyone has to have a (CC) license, >> soon to become the "Members Only" jacket of the early 80's? >> > > I guess my question was, is this change for the sake of change? Nothing gained from how I read Richard's comment. Two primary things gained: * CC-SA is a much more readable, simple license than OPL. That is a good thing in and of itself. * if you're trying to build a real commons, where people share content with each other and build off each other's work, it behooves you to use a commonly used license. I've literally never seen OPL used anywhere other than Fedora; CC-SA is one of the most broadly used copyright licenses on the planet, especially now that Wikipedia has dumped GFDL. As a result of the switch, Fedora doc writers will now have access to a vast source of images and text which they can freely use in their own writing, without worries about legal complications. Those sound like big benefits to me. Luis _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
