On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 15:37 -0800, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Thu, 2007-12-20 at 16:46 +0300, John Babich wrote: > > In my opinion, two big blocking issues are > > 1. complications due to licensing > > Cannot be helped. The OPL is the only good license for Fedora content. > If the situation changes or a sufficient license arrives, we can use it. > > The complications of copyright law, US law, and other intellectual > property laws are not the fault of this project. We do with what we > can. :) Timothy mentioned that Miles was in favor of him bringing this document to us. That means if Miles dual-licenses the document, with the new license being the OPL with no restrictions, Timothy could bring it here and work on it. Timothy, if you want to bring that question to Miles, and he simply plops a bit of text into the document at his site stating that, that's probably sufficient. -- Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 Fedora Project: http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
