Re: [Ambassadors] Request for Comments: Fedora Project Contributor Agreement Draft (Replacement for Fedora Individual Contributor License Agreement)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:54:26PM -0400, David Nalley wrote:
> I started thinking about the recent move of fp.o's content to CC-BY-SA
> using the 'nuclear option.' for changing license.
> 
> The proposed FPCA seems to eliminate license changes except for
> explicitly unlicensed content. (as oxymoronic as explicitly unlicensed
> sounds). So for instance, current Docs Projects are explicitly
> licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported. In the event that CC-BY-SA 4.0 (or
> $othercoolcontentlicenseinfavor) was 50% more awesome and we wanted to
> move to it, it would seem that the 'nuclear option' for doing so would
> not exist.
> 
> So first, is my above understanding correct?
> Second, if so, are we sure we want to give up the ability to change
> wiki and documentation licensing.

The draft FPCA is intended in large part to codify the Fedora Project
interpretation of the existing Fedora CLA, as I think Spot pointed
out. I suppose that what's different about Fedora documentation and
wiki content is that Fedora publicized, and continues to publicize,
the specific licensing policy for such content (OPL, and later
CC-BY-SA). I think it would be better to clarify the distinction
between inbound and outbound licensing in places like
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject#Documentation_licensing and
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses#This_Website (I'll edit
the first page).

Given the established interpretation of the Fedora CLA by Fedora
Legal, the 'nuclear option' was applied on the assumption that,
regardless of such statements about licensing policy, documentation
and wiki content contributions were, with rare exceptions,
"Unlicensed" in the sense used in the FPCA and thus the contributor
granted the broad copyright license "to Red Hat, Inc., on behalf of
[Fedora], and to recipients of software distributed by
[Fedora]". Thus, under the existing Fedora CLA, Red Hat (and, in fact,
all other Fedora community members) had permission to license out
most, if not all, docs contributions under the OPL, and under CC-BY-SA
too.  I don't think the fact that Fedora publicized its documentation
licensing policy is inconsistent with the notion that contributors
voluntarily kept their contributions "Unlicensed". 

So actually I think that if the draft FPCA had been in place all this
time, but say with the OPL as the 'Default License' for content,
Fedora would have been able to exercise the 'nuclear option' by
designating a new Default License. 

Note BTW that CC-BY-SA 3.0 explicitly allows 'Adaptations' to be
licensed under "a later version of this License with the same License
Elements as this License". .

-- 
Richard E. Fontana
Open Source Licensing and Patent Counsel
Red Hat, Inc.
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux