-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:07:29PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 04:14:32PM -0400, Pamela Chestek wrote: > > As pointed out by others, for those using content under the CC-BY-SA license we > > should state clearly somewhere how we would like the attribution. > > This is already done in the default Fedora docs CC BY-SA notice by > designating the Fedora Project as the "Attribution Party" (a term used > in CC BY-SA 3.0). I suppose we could be clearer about what that > actually means. Well, it doesn't actually say *how* we want the attribution. As Spot pointed out to me attribution could be in the form of a "thank you" on a post card mailed to me. I'm okay with the *who* but saying we want our attribution to be in the form of text within the work should be written somewhere, IMO. > > I also agree with Richard that we should carve out the copyright in the logo > > from any license grant. > > Yes, the original intent of the current notice language was to > indicate that but I think it can be made clearer. > > The entire legal notice actually needs to be revisited because of the > FPCA too (I assume contributors to docs are typically in cla-done or > whatever it's called). The idea of Red Hat being "the licensor of this > document" may have made sense under the old Fedora CLA regime but I > think it does not make sense under the FPCA (because the inbound > content license is now CC BY-SA by default). Yes, all Docs contributors have signed the CLA and now the FPCA. - --Eric -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iF0EAREIAAYFAk4FUYwACgkQU03aaJDMNEUBOAD2MxeTAZdzVaI2GYeA4qGKwIpy 1enjxpSdYEkiRjWDsQD/baAiao37hwTRiskDK4IMK4MgGfglEL7R2vnvbUp2jNE= =+D5M -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- docs mailing list docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/docs
