On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 09:50:07AM -0500, inode0 wrote: >> While not as common, something like the GNU All-Permissive License >> seems like it might match your stated goals better in this case and is >> really quite similar in spirit to the MIT License selected for code. >> It isn't really a general content license but is intended for what is >> commonly understood to be documentation included with code. > > I think we considered that one briefly, and it's worth considering > again. The only drawback is that it is not a well-known and > widely-used license like the MIT license (the modern variant) is, or > like CC-BY-SA is. It would avoid the possible problem you have pointed > to. > > There's also an argument that the Creative Commons licenses are better > for some kinds of creative content because they explicitly talk about > public display and public performance rights, but perhaps that's more > of a theoretical benefit in this context. In all the cases where the content is not bundled with code I think the CC-BY-SA license is a superb choice, so I did not mean to suggest swapping it for the permissive license I mentioned except possibly in the case of bundling with code already covered by a different copyleft license. The MIT license used for code could also be used in such cases without problems I believe (and that would be the default if all such bundlings are defined as code by the FPCA which I'm just too dense to discern). I am happy to leave that in the capable hands sorting through these issues now. Thanks, John _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
