On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 05:43:48PM -0400, Eric H. Christensen wrote: > 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? It's certainly not something to worry *about*. It seems okay to me for documentation authors to begin explicitly using an acceptable 4.0 CC license if that's what they want to do. However if such documentation uses pre-existing 3.0 material, it must comply with the latter license. The 4.0 licenses fix the moral rights bug in the 3.0 Unported series, which would allow elimination of the famous passive-aggressive waiver sentence. :) _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
