On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:49:52PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > > 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". . That is what brought be comfort during the relicensing process. I didn't like the implications of the Fedora Project able to potentially and arbitrarily relicense works without any other oversight or guidance.[1] But the OPL didn't have the above clause the CC does. I'm now comfortable that we can protect our free and open content with the CC license alone, and if another default license is chosen in the future, it will be fundamentally similar, thereby protecting the freeness. - Karsten [1] Even while I was the one calling for using the 'nuclear option'. -- name: Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Sr. Community Gardener team: Red Hat Community Architecture uri: http://TheOpenSourceWay.org/wiki gpg: AD0E0C41
Attachment:
pgp5hdWnZ14Md.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
