On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:04:20 -0400 Eric Christensen <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 15:01, Richard Fontana<rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 14:46:44 -0400 > > Eric Christensen <eric@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> So I'm concentrating on that first paragraph, second sentence only. > >> So we should make it: > >> > >> Copyright © 2008 Red Hat, Inc. This material may only be > >> distributed subject to the terms and conditions set forth in a > >> Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license, (the > >> latest version is presently available at > >> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/). > > > > That's the sentence I was recommending should be changed, because > > the existing language is derived from the now-disfavored OPL -- > > since you're going to be changing the sentence anyway to change the > > license reference. > > > > - RF > > So you like how I changed it? No, sorry, I'm being unclear. :) This is a small point but one I feel is worth making: The OPL text contains a "proper" form of an OPL license notice. Someone, presumably Red Hat Legal, decided to use this license notice language in OPL-licensed Red Hat and Fedora documentation. Since we're no longer using the OPL, no need to use that OPL-specific license notice language anymore either. If we were starting from scratch without ever having used the OPL, I do not think we would have come up with that actual wording, although there's nothing wrong with it in principle. I'm therefore recommending a more matter-of-fact license notice which I believe is more in keeping with the CC universe and doesn't have the "you are forbidden from doing this" emphasis I detect in the OPL language: This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. This is not a recommendation with any legal basis; it's aesthetics. - RF -- fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
