On 06/29/2011 07:46 AM, Richard Fontana wrote: > I admit that whether the FPCA can be read to govern emails (that is, > the substantive text of the message, to the extent it's copyrightable) > to a Fedora mailing list as a 'Contribution' is unclear under the > FPCA. It was also unclear under the Fedora CLA, though a little less > unclear. There are multiple ways to clarify this issue if people are > concerned. > > No one brought this issue up in what I recall were at least a few > months of public availability of the FPCA draft along with a public > request for comments. Yes indeed because intuitively, it didn't strike me that a email would be considered a contribution under FPCA unless it includes a patch or something else along those lines. The notion of a default license is one that I found disturbing. This only helps as an example. > Just out of curiosity, what terms do you see as applying to your > emails to Fedora mailing lists? I think if anything the appropriate > default 'license' would be CC0, apart from any attachment like a > patch or whatever (i.e. something closer to the intuitive notion of a > Fedora contribution). I am not sure a license is necessary beyond fair use. CC-BY-ND maybe. If you publish a opinion piece, you don't necessarily want people to remix it. I think of emails as mini editorials. Mere redistribution is fine. Rahul _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
