Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Tue, Apr 07, 2009 at 03:30:26AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: 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. That doesn't mean that this particular clause or the idea behind it cannot be adopted. The only real problem with copyright assignment is the fear that my contributions can be used under proprietary terms by a commercial organization (ie) exploitation of my volunteer work. A counter promise takes that fear away. > 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. Then I would prefer that we go straight to CC-BY-SA and not dual license. Dual license seems to have no real advantage in this matter and will only complicate reuse of content. Rahul -- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
