On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 01:55:44PM -0400, Robyn Bergeron wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Joe Brockmeier" <jzb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > To: "marketing >> Fedora Marketing team" <marketing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:42:03 AM > > Subject: Copyright Submission Proposal > > > > Hey all, > > > > To streamline this whole thing, can we just agree to publish all content > > on the magazine (and ask authors to agree) on a single Creative Commons > > license? > > #1: Doesn't the FPCA provide for this anyway, in the absence of some standardized agreement? > It seems like a lot of overhead in terms of keeping track of who has > agreed to publish under those terms. It's either a new FAS group > where people have agreed to a license, or revalidating existing fas > groups, or... just checking as we already do to make sure people > have signed the FPCA. (I assume that Magazine is hooked up to FAS in > some fashion.) If this is a hooked-up-to-FAS thing covered by the FPCA (which seems to be the case but someone tell me if that's wrong or dubious), then yes, the default license is a Creative Commons license (more precisely, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license along with our time-honored passive-aggressive "waiver of the right to enforce, and an agreement not to assert, Section 4d of CC-BY-SA against the Fedora Community, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law" along with "a grant of additional copyright permission to distribute or make available to the public a copy of a GPL-Covered Derivative of the Contribution under the terms of the applicable version of the GPL, with no conditions of CC-BY-SA that would be treated as "further restrictions" within the meaning of the applicable version of the GPL surviving such distribution with respect to that copy."). I should note that the FPCA is designed to be consistent with individual choice of non-default licenses. However, I think it would be odd as a policy matter to allow NC-ND as an explicit licensing choice. > > I would *personally* prefer the most restrictive of the CC licenses (CC > > BY-NC-ND 4.0): > > > > https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ > > > #2: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 is listed in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing as a license that isn't acceptable for Fedora. I realize you're citing 4.0 here, and we don't have guidance on 4.0 in the wiki, but I have to imagine it's not going to be much of a change. The NC part is still NC... as you said, it's the most restrictive, and at least in my opinion, restrictiveness isn't exactly freedom-enabling :) With the caveat that I'm hearing about this for the first time and completely out of context, the NC-ND proposal actually seems worse than going back to the horrific days of the Open Publication License. :) Regarding the 4.0 series, this is something that should be looked at. My general impression is that the 4.0 CC licenses are an improvement over the 3.0 series. - RF _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
