On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 10:15:31AM +0100, Paul wrote: > > > 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? > > Given this is in the planning stage, an integral part of planning must > include the contributions! The original proposal from Linux Pro Magazine was built around the concept of, "We can do all this for Fedora and keep the work load off of you." Mel's approach, rightly IMO, is to consider, "How much of this can be done by Fedora contributors, so they can learn from the professional magazine staff and have a direct hand in creating this magazine." That means, as much of the content as we can reasonably get from within the Fedora Project, we will. So, that means that the situation is likely to be a blend of what Spot and Paul are talking about here. The pool of contributors already has more exposure to licensing, for example, and form opinions similar to what Spot is saying. For example, I plan to write for the issue, and I have particular opinions about licensing. :) I prefer (now) to use a CC license. Actually, to be honest, I'd be fine with deciding as a magazine editorial team to use one specific license to make eventual content freeing easier. From my perspective, the core challenge is "NC or not-NC". I think people in the project would prefer to do work that can be reused by Fedora. LPM, as you said, may have different preferences here. What I was thinking was a modified form of the "first publication rights" contract: * All content is contractually under the CC BY-SA-NC until six months after the publication hits the magazine stands. * At that point, the rights holders remove the NC clause permanently so that it can be freely used by Fedora. This gives LPM the commercial protection to make their investment worthwhile, having it sunset about the time that the next version of Fedora Linux comes out. I actually feel that 6 months is too long; I'd prefer 3, so that the content can be used in Fedora while it is still highly relevant. But I'm not sure that is fair to LPM, especially if this is the first time they've entered into such a contract. I want to give them enough room to feel comfortable about making it work. - Karsten -- Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41
Attachment:
pgpp2FQgjLW23.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
