On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 03:33:54PM +0000, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote: > > NO we made a switch from some other license to OPL because the other > license was not great for documentation. The OPL was picked because > at the time we were to inherit a bunch of documentation from Red > Hat's RHEL docs. Not sure that has ever really happened on the scale > that anyone hoped. Yes, that content injection began this January/February. For example, the expanded Fedora Installation Guide inherited a ton of content from the RHT team. The new Security Guide and the SELinux Guide are similar. We switched from the GFDL to the OPL because it was a better license and would let us get work from e.g. RHT. At that time, we had several discussions with RHT Legal, who at the time were concerned about some items in the CC licenses (1.1 or something) that have since been ironed out or resolved. Luis' reply in the correct one -- we gain immensely from joining a wider content commons. I think the OPL's author's comments in the threads I referenced are poignant, too. > I did not intend to suggest that Creative Commons was directly > behind this change. The popularity of (CC) in the last couple years > has bloomed it is nearly viral. While the licenses may be very good > I still feel having a (CC) logo really is a fashion statement, plus > everyone else is doing it... Hopefully these are not the concious > reasons that the change is being made. Not at all. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41
Attachment:
pgpxsH2efrJB6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
