On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:49:52PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > 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. A clarification here: *Red Hat*-copyrighted contributions did not come in under the Fedora CLA. However, all Red Hat-copyrighted contributions to Fedora docs that were previously licensed under the OPL are now also available under CC-BY-SA 3.0, so the statement in my last sentence there is correct. - RF _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
