On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 03:30:26AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > 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. FSF uses copyright assignment, IIRC, which we don't. > > 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? I wouldn't presume to speak for Red Hat Legal. The OPL was a free license that matched Fedora Documentation. Spot has already said in his previous post that Red Hat Legal might now prefer CC-BY-SA. Paul
Attachment:
pgpafgxThKuMe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
