-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 12:20:11AM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 10:51:29PM -0400, Eric H. Christensen wrote: > > > (1) preserve copyright notices and (2) provide the name of the > > > "Original Author" (as defined, for a Fedora manual I'd say this would > > > be any named human authors or any substitute like "Fedora > > > Documentation Team" in the Installation Guide). > > > > Does it have to be a legal entity? > > No, for example "Fedora Documentation Team" could be an "Original > Author" in the sense meant in CC BY-SA 3.0, in my opinion. Okay, this makes sense. > > > I'm not sure Red Hat can hold the copyright to this work. If they > > can't/don't then I believe that Red Hat wouldn't be able to help us > > if there was infringement (see Righthaven). If we (the creators of > > the work) needed to enforce the license would we be on our own for > > legal representation? > > Certainly: this is a direct consequence of the fact that contributors > to Fedora are not required to assign copyright to Red Hat, or any > other entity. (Moreover, individuals contributing to projects that do > require copyright assignment cannot, of course, rely on the copyright > holder enforcing the license that it grants.) So how do we go about enforcing the license? > > > I would say that the author list is not necessarily a complete > > listing of copyright holders. That is one thing that needs to be > > changed (more on that below). I also wonder if the list would be > > too long for easy attribution. > > Yes, I recall we discussed this back when I raised the Gilligan's > Island issue. Note that any particular listed author isn't necessarily > a copyright holder. (But CC BY-SA seems to take that into account.) > > Anyway, my thinking was that where particular Fedora manuals *do* list > authors, it seems generally to be a small list. If someone contributed > to a document and is bothered by the potential failure to provide > attribution, I suppose they could request that their name be added to > the list of authors. > > > Thanks, Richard, for re-visiting this. Unfortunately I feel as if > > we haven't been doing attribution to the best of our abilities (my > > opinion) and while we leave a pretty good breadcrumb trail (git > > commit logs, wiki logs, etc) making it easy to determine who owns > > the copyright for all the bits in our group project is hidden, at > > best. The newer guides might be in better shape but the older ones > > and the ones with text taken from the wiki are woefully inadequate > > (speaking as someone who has personally failed in this venture with > > the Accessibility Guide, the Security Guide, and anything else that > > was resurrected from the the cvs grave). > > Ah, I think we may be talking about two slightly different things. You > seem to be concerned with the problem of whether the Fedora > documentation team is giving sufficient credit to those who contribute > to a given document. I am talking about what downstream redistributors > (or modifiers-distributors) should be required to do with what they > get from the Fedora Project (as guided by the legal notice). Here is a problem. If we aren't providing attribution then we aren't following the CC BY-SA license. If we aren't providing attribution then how can others provide appropriate attribution? > > But those are not completely unrelated issues, because, at least under > the new FPCA regime, any contributor to Fedora documentation is > potentially a CC BY-SA licensor. Thus one can reasonably say that the > Fedora documentation team has responsibilities to its own > contributors. Exactly. > > My basic current view on this is that if an author wants credit, the > author has the responsibility to ensure that he or she is > visible. This isn't limited to Creative Commons licenses or content > licensing; I apply a similar interpretation to the GPL's "appropriate > copyright notice" requirement. Therefore once a document is actually > released by the Fedora docs team, it is reasonable for everyone else > to assume its list of authors is complete or precise enough for > purposes of attribution. If the Fedora docs team thinks the level of > precision in identifying authors/contributors is not high enough it > can decide on how to remedy that. > > I also note the following clause in the FPCA: > > You consent to having Fedora provide reasonable notice of Your > licensing of Your Contribution under the Current Default License > (and, if applicable, a Later Default License) in a manner determined > by Fedora. > > I was thinking more of the MIT License, the default "code" license, > when I wrote that, but it applies to CC BY-SA as the default content > license too. I see this as giving the Fedora Project some reasonable > leeway in how it deals with the issue of crediting contributors. Maybe but only if we decide to change the license. If we are saying that we are CC BY-SA then we have to meet those requirements until such time when we officially change the license. > > > - RF - --Eric -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJOic+nAAoJEIB2q94CS7PR/I4QAKn7I/Q38xIaCE0t6JDqjsLb 3BABeG6K9ySI2XxhW7z62fVD1nyFCMHbZ0/nSsLa5IGYfoy1IqwBvZWW3XajsXxQ jKOw99im54DvbvBXbFlDjrVJJUygUhmjfDj6PHPmuDjSAtNBTJ+NmNd6Pn7a6e/5 hP5N1If6jbwM+L1BBLBW5SOJ5qjg2Rf1i5ui8pgSyz9bl3ARKQgsZOJQUSNI9Ud2 ATQ4BgCopgC0MP46KKd32vYCfQMLShzB8QAN1S4sAVWhpVQ03r4wDNi4hh0Bxyx8 sj1un9nrXRxArn4bvheOsaTQH/rZG4mYWBd1d2UL4OIP50STqeqlWBJsVUMWcFQM cOi0+lBvpv37zcnLddFHX9Bf6WCIIL9tJR/mzc0dQdk9vZZSxVnW84VuzrNPDzFl VdMxc/ZGHr5yH/QgmFVK/wTky0UdqrSe+4XLDnlIVEkIbEXZlPj0KXNwdl3j1zCm Tdq4WGvYysfXcbPBI9/cY/0KRDLBrswJ1AaBhB8ubRS/bxWnGdvtl+o7btqF/pOL 8Q8gnzsg5+pvTnEGcZgnTxBzQaTiGjHu4yaNW7CI4nCpBvALdO4wnLpWi/Mbs3UB 0pmSnegFxIT4rK08YYKmqd2CIuXxqdofLpJJjfjrilZLrDmReDTZGa9kCLibZhdQ zigdMgE6Vq6RyBsCkaRV =aXIB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- docs mailing list docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/docs
