On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 01:04:47 +0530 Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * Would you recommend CC-BY-SA or GNU FDL as the choice to go forward > with? Which one I think either choice is sufficiently reasonable that it's something for the Fedora Project to decide. So, no recommendation. > * Would you recommend a dual licensing strategy or just a single > license to switch to? Based on what was discussed upthread, I assume you mean a policy of keeping Fedora content under OPL but also offering it under another license like CC-BY-SA. There may be some advantage to this, but I'm not sure what it would be. Still, such dual-licensing would not be unreasonable on its face; after all, OPL has been the established Fedora content license for a long time. So, no recommendation. > Somewhat out of scope for this discussion, could a future revision of > the Fedora CLA have a counter promise from Red Hat to keep the > contributions, free and open? I'm hoping that the Fedora board and Red Hat Legal can make progress on revising the Fedora CLA in the near future. Although the form of the current CLA is probably better suited to a project like Apache than to a project like Fedora, I think the way that Fedora has been applying the CLA in practice is actually good, and points the way toward possible revision. Perhaps the best way for a contributor to keep contributions free and open is for that contributor to explicitly place a copyleft license on his or her contributions, which any Fedora contributor can do today under the existing CLA. - RF -- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
