On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We don't think that CC-BY's relationship to CC-BY-SA is sufficiently > analogous to that between MIT and GPL (and other strong copyleft > licenses) to justify the choice of CC-BY based on a desire for license > compatibility. Since CC-BY and CC-BY-SA therefore seemed roughly > equal, we felt that a policy of promoting copyleft licensing where > feasible, and the fact that it had been adopted for Fedora wiki > content and docs with general enthusiasm (replacing the much > disfavored OPL), justified the choice of CC-BY-SA. Richard, Thank you very much for your remarks. I agree with a policy of promoting copyleft licensing where feasible and am happy to hear that was a consideration in the process. My only concern about the CC-BY-SA follows from my understanding (which may or may not be correct) that it is incompatible with the GPL and would cause problems for small support and documentation files added to something covered by the GPL. If such files are not considered "content" by Fedora then that isn't an issue. Thanks again. John _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
