> > I think it's irrelevant, however. Having matching > > licenses wouldn't > > help integration. > > I think it will by the opening up *potential* ways to > incorporate content from RHEL docs to fedora Read the copyright page on the RHEL manuals: "Distribution of substantively modified versions of this document is prohibited without the explicit permission of the copyright holder." Meaning that Fedora docs, which would count as the aforementioned "substantively modified versions," would be subject to this clause. Every single version... which is completely compatible with the OPL (q.v. Section VI), and again, which is due to completely understandable business reasons. Putting FDP work under the OPL does not mitigate this problem in the least. > Red Hat is unlikely to bring > > Fedora content into > > Enterprise Linux documents because of the copyright > > ownership issues. > > yes I understand that but I am checking to see if it > would work the other way around if fedora docs project > can accept OPL licensed documents If we switched to the OPL -- which, by the way, would mean that every existing document which is already FDL'd would have to be rewritten -- we would still be required to adhere to any additional restrictions placed by copyright holders on their OPL documents. Hence, the same problem could occur multiple times for a single document. I'm not a FDL flag-waver, but the FDL for all its shortcomings does at least mean we have a clear path to follow. Karsten believes he beat this dead horse, but I made a tasty soup. Mmm, good! (Uh-oh, better watch out for the Slogan Police(tm).) :-D -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE
