On 09/04/2009 02:51 PM, Paul wrote: > 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'm torn here. I want to believe that protective authors will be intelligent enough to set licensing terms for their copyrighted works. Also, I don't want to say "these are the terms under which you give us these works", because then those protective people just complain and moan about how they're either too restrictive or too permissive. My instinct is to say that the contributing authors have to tell us the license under which we can use their contributions. Alternately, we could use unlicensed contributions of articles under the CLA, which allows us an extremely permissive license. Also, I'm not sure that LPM will be okay with using material under CC-BY-SA, for example (which is Free). If I had to guess, I'd say they would want something with the Non Commercial restriction (and a specific exclusion for them). But lets keep in mind that as far as I know, it is not clear where the content for this magazine will come from. Mel, maybe you can shed some light here? ~spot _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
