-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 04:22:15PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 03:50:51PM -0400, Eric H. Christensen wrote: > > Creative Commons is pushing the use of their 4.0 license (which I have no qualms with). Has/can legal review this new license[0] as a drop-in replacement for the 3.0 license[1] we are currently using for Fedora Documentation (with the waiving the rights to enforce Section 4d)? I'm unsure of any benefits or regressions we would have (I haven't personally compared the two and IANAL). > > It can't be a (pure) drop-in replacement (you can't 'relicense' > existing CC BY SA 3.0 stuff) and the FPCA still makes CC BY SA 3.0 (+ > moral rights waiver etc.) the default content license. The latter is > possibly worth changing. Hmm, I had forgotten that the FPCA specifies CC BY-SA 3.0. I wonder if it's worth the hassle up upgrading that to 4.0 and further wonder what happens when we get to the super great x.y version and want to change. > > I have personally concluded that the 4.0 licenses are at least > marginally better than the 3.0 Unported ones, FWIW. Marginally meaning we probably shouldn't worry with it for now? Thanks, Eric -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJTmh8SAAoJEB/kgVGp2CYvggsL/j6uR5XsKw5TN+zsDtHYcYQs 3H2R1cctxQGySQffMQGEf+WzSDyeMIe1+zlk0n4Ik3j2oGBX78YruwrT3RvEdEL1 Gv5+WOyDulzEqmoNOtLAfwkB5n0zLvjOn49xJMfCZWzoqmaSFWvCfQX01K2ldgm7 pHohXK5oHx0b3rsvTIVMsL1juOetJd14CmmmhcoN6kWL5fWqzUiCOS5WsPsDMJYn diPJ0jMCYWJwdycxvJJAJUAA4Z8Za3eNrMsdCjdq6GHbrUoDMXZ/6YxUcDG5F4J3 M8SYwKj8dwxSokFPb7VbWhun/4hMHr/0vsKF6jXJuJVB1emrYq8QyUoN9tHXtTAQ nMbUH5nkrGefSjS7zTN2dp3pDCbZvGJpSZtE/BNHgvXPLu0csnJQvucdpKmLiEM1 kdQS+uTIRcQ/7S3lb98Ou4xO3sV4G1PSZsSxv3x/jYbx6UQKyCAzjO7u37Ju+5U7 Y9Y5Rv4QvTEf+63rDxhHavF1Hvr5/qg5Msv48l2f4g== =Rxuh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
