Hi, > > I've not edited the page as I'd like the fedora-legal people's > > perspective on this. > > Hmm, ok. Here's my thoughts: > > * Some of the content will be written/created by LPM (possibly all of > the content). Accordingly, I don't think we get much say in how they use > it, aside from the normal trademark usage considerations. I'd have thought that we (Fedora people) would be in a better position to write about F12 than LPM. As it is advertising Fedora, I think Fedora should have more say in what is done with it. > * For anything that Fedora owns, we should be sure it is available under > acceptable licensing terms, but for things like screenshots, I doubt > there is much concern, as that sort of thing is rather ubiquitous. You'd think that - I know some companies hate screenshots being taken and frequently mock up rather than show production... > * I think ultimately, if Fedora contributors end up authoring content > for this magazine, they should do so under licensing terms that they are > comfortable with, but I don't think it is necessary to mandate it. Here I'd disagree. While for software, folks are happy for anyone to use it as they like. However, for written work, people become protective. It is better have something which says "by contributing this piece, you are giving Fedora to publish once and republish once by any means". That way the author knows exactly what terms they are contributing by. I know it's not ideal, but this is publishing and to paraphrase and old (and long gone) editor friend, "you live and die by the words you use". TTFN Paul -- Sie können mich aufreizen und wirklich heiß machen!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
