Paul W. Frields wrote: > > We have moved licenses before, from FDL to OPL, and it involved a huge > amount of effort to track down all the contributors for sign-off. I > would encourage a CLA that still allowed Red Hat, on behalf of the > Fedora Project, to relicense contributions in a way that imposes no > additional terms on the recipient. (I.e. you can get less > restrictive, not more restrictive.) However, I suspect that's a > really difficult target to hit in legalese. It is also sometimes plain wrong. GPLv3 has more requirements but also relaxes particular requirements as well but many would say, thats a better licenses than previous versions. Also CC share alike might have more requirements than OPL as well. More requirements doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing. It's a tricky thing. What I would prefer is a counter obligation from Red Hat to keep the CLA contributions free and open source but continue to allow relicensing. FSF has something similar if you want to know how that works legally. > We should not make this effort without communicating with our > compatriots in Red Hat Documentation. They moved to the OPL to match > our requirements so it would only be fair to coordinate with them. IIRC this change was driven by Red Hat Legal. What does Red Hat legal say now? Rahul -- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
