On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 00:58, David Nalley <david.nalley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I think the following issue is partly one of policy so I am first >> raising it here. For those who don't know who I am, I am a Red Hat >> lawyer and among other things I deal with software and documentation >> copyright and licensing issues. >> >> Formal Fedora-branded documentation uses a default legal notice that >> among other things uses the following universal copyright notice: >> >> Copyright © <YEAR> Red Hat, Inc. and others. >> >> followed by, typically, a CC BY-SA license notice and some trademark >> notice boilerplate. >> >> If I remember correctly, this is implemented via the Fedora Publican >> brand package. >> >> This form of copyright notice is found elsewhere in the Fedora >> universe, as in the footer of fp.o web pages. >> >> I recognize the convenience of a universal legal notice for purposes >> of automating generation of documentation, but there is something >> about it that bothers me. Consider two examples: the Fedora 14 Amateur >> Radio Guide and the Fedora 15 Musician's Guide. From what I can tell, >> the actual authors of these documents are not, and were not at time of >> authorship, Red Hat employees. (Moreover, it is not necessarily the >> case, in any given situation, that Red Hat would be copyright holder >> of all or some of the text even if they had been Red Hat employees, >> but for simplicity let's ignore that issue.) >> >> Now, the copyright notice is correct nonetheless because Red Hat holds >> copyright on the Fedora logo image, and, as I recall, all >> documentation includes some standard language (like the typographical >> conventions section) over which, let us assume, Red Hat has some >> copyright interest. >> >> Nevertheless, why should a document that was actually written >> exclusively by non-Red-Hat employees use "Copyright Red Hat, Inc. and >> others" (what a friend of mine has called a "Gilligan's Island >> copyright" after the original Gilligan's Island theme song which >> famously referred to the important characters of the Professor and >> Mary Ann as "and the rest")? >> >> I don't think the Red Hat copyright ownership of the Fedora logo image >> justifies the Gilligan's Island copyright notice, as in fact the CC >> BY-SA license notice is designed (and perhaps should be improved in >> this regard, even though it ought to be obvious) to make clear that >> the logo image itself isn't being licensed under CC BY-SA. So if >> anything it is the intention for the copyright notice *not* to refer >> to the logo. (And, if you want a copyright notice because of the logo, >> have a special line saying "Logo copyright <year> Red Hat, Inc.") And >> while Red Hat might hold copyright on some small standard portions of >> the text, the substantial part of what is creative and expressive in >> the examples I gave were written by people unaffiliated with Red >> Hat. >> >> So, in the case of at least that subset of Fedora documentation that >> is written by those who aren't Red Hat employees (but perhaps, er, the >> rest too), what purpose is the Gilligan's Island copyright notice >> serving? It doesn't provide the public notice of actual substantial >> copyright ownership in at least some cases. It doesn't provide >> attribution to the actual human authors. To me, all it really does is >> communicate the following: >> >> 1) Red Hat has an intimate connection to the Fedora Project. >> >> 2) Red Hat is "first among equals" when it comes to attribution for >> Fedora project documentation; non-Red-Hat-associated contributors to >> Fedora documentation merit only second-class status. >> >> I submit that 1) is already rather obvious to the world and is, if >> anything, problematically exaggerated in the public mind. I submit >> that 2) is an inappropriate use of a copyright notice even if the >> policy were legitimate. Copyright notices aren't supposed to be used >> for attribution - I recognize that in free software they often do >> serve that purpose - but if they *are* used for attribution, >> attribution ought to be given to the human authors. Or to the Fedora >> Project as collaborative thing. (A nice thing about CC licenses is >> that they decouple attribution from copyright ownership, as in fact >> you can see in the default documentation legal notice which states >> that attribution is to be given to the Fedora Project -- not Red Hat.) >> >> I submit further that it serves no valid purpose to overemphasize the >> degree to which Red Hat is the copyright holder of Fedora >> documentation anyway. Fedora contributors do not assign copyright to >> Red Hat. If you want to give credit to Red Hat, or overemphasize the >> intimacy of the Fedora/Red Hat relationship, do so in some other way: >> have a "The Fedora Project is sponsored by Red Hat" line or something >> like that (though I don't see the point of that either, and if we >> really cared about that I assume we would have had a requirement to >> give attribution to Red Hat rather than the Fedora Project). >> >> It may be that the only practical alternative is not to have a >> copyright notice at all. That is by no means beyond consideration, >> given that copyright notices have rather limited significance anyway. >> In the specific examples I noted above, I would say that what little >> legal value copyright notices have is not present at all. This could >> well be true of other cases. >> >> So I guess I'm interested in knowing whether there is a strong desire >> (particularly among those on this list who are not Red Hat employees >> yet who have contributed to Fedora documentation) to maintain the >> tradition of the Gilligan's Island copyright notice, and whether >> alternatives are feasible and preferable. The Musician's Guide shows >> that one can prominently credit the principal human author of the >> document at the beginning. The Amateur Radio Guide shows that one can >> do the same thing but with "The Fedora Documentation Project" as the >> author. >> >> If no such strong desire exists, it is my desire to recommend changes >> that will eliminate the use of the Gilligan's Island copyright notice >> in Fedora documentation. >> >> >> - Richard > > > Hi Richard, > > If I had my druthers, I'd like to see something along the lines of: > 'Copyright © <YEAR> Fedora Project' if we used a copyright notice or > perhaps even better: > 'Copyright © <YEAR> Fedora Project Contributors' I spoke with Spot on this while at SELF. Because Fedora Project isn't a legal entity it cannot hold a copyright. More in my next message... -- docs mailing list docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/docs
