On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 23:35 +0530, Anand Capur wrote:
> I mean people are free to use, copy, etc.. the articles and since the
> CLA is for copyrighted stuff, I guess we wouldn't need it signed.
Hmm. I don't want to take this too far off the path, and it's certainly
off-topic for this list. Hopefully I can clear this up with a single
post.
There are a few things to keep in mind:
* At least in the US, copyright exists the moment you create a work.
This means you have to actively choose to _give_up_ your copyright. For
Fedora Magazine to do that, it would have to have a legal notice that it
was all public domain, etc.
* Fedora cannot take contributions into anything we (re)distribute that
do not come from a person who has signed the CLA. So, I can take a
patch from a non-CLA person, but when that patch goes into a package, it
is done by me (a CLA person). Same with a fix for content from someone
who emails me that "such and so" is incorrect in a doc.
These are not anywhere official yet, but they are approved by legal
counsel:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KarstenWade/Drafts/CLAAcceptanceHierarchies
If content goes into something we distribute, whether in an ISO or HTML
file, it has to be under the CLA. A click-through CLA is sufficient for
content that is Web-only.
* The way Fedora achieves the goal you lay out for people to be "free to
use, copy, etc." the content that comes from Fedora Magazine is to
license that content. Same as we do with source code. Thus, Fedora
Magazine would be under the OPL (most likely), but we could look into
the possibility of using the CC BY-SA.
Clear as mud? :)
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, 108 Editor ^ Fedora Documentation Project
Sr. Developer Relations Mgr. | fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
quaid.108.redhat.com | gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Heh, yep clear as mud! Ok, well OPL is fine for me. I just used CC BY-SA as a possibility. Legal issues are always confusing...
