On 09/03/2009 11:38 PM, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 02:17:44PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> >> At last week's meeting we made a decision about which licenses would >> best fit our needs. The results are recorded here: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure_Licensing > > I don't see any listing of content licenses. Other than what you put > on the wiki that is covered by that license (soon to be CC BY SA), > have you thought about specifying what you license content under? > For content inside of apps/libraries (Like the documentation for python-fedora http://fedorahosted.org/releases/p/y/python-fedora/doc/ generated from the tarball) I would think it would follow the app's licensing. If you can think of good reasons to put it under a different license, we should talk about it. (Note that parts of the documentation there are extracted from the source. Not sure if that affects things). For content on the wiki we're covered by the license for the whole wiki. For content like CSI, I don't think we had thought about it. I would lean towards going with the license that docs uses. mmcgrath has been the most prolific in that area, though. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
