On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 06:57 -0800, Karsten Wade wrote: > On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 20:52 -0600, Patrick Barnes wrote: > > The Fedora Documentation Project has agreed to the OPL[1] for all formal > > documentation. We now wish to apply this same license to the > > fedoraproject.org wiki. > > To be clear, and I'll wait for response before changing WikiLicenseTalk, > the FDP is accountable for all Fedora content. Does this not cover the > Wiki content already? > > Why the differentiation? > > 1. Work on the Wiki tools is obviously under a different license, so we > need to be clear we mean Wiki content. > > 2. The OPL is a policy we need to set for all content that is copyright > of the Foundation. The same content can be dual-licensed (or triple- > licensed), it's just that the Foundation wants to use the OPL. > > This matters because of how we interact with other knowledge > repositories. This weekend the Fedora Unity project is voting on using > the OPL for their websites, and I'm going to be at that meeting to > encourage that they do for interoperability. > > We have to consider this when approving additional Fedora websites as > formal. The owners of that content are welcome to whatever license they > prefer, but if they don't also put it under the OPL, we cannot > intermingle with it. Shame for modularity and reduction of efforts. > > > This will require some dramatic actions and changes, > > and will have a huge impact on contributions to the wiki. The single biggest > > change would be the requirement of the CLA for EditGroup privileges. > > While I'm in favor [below for reason], I note that this is a sea change. > > Adding someone to the Wiki has gone from: > > 1. Add them to EditGroup > 2. ??? > 3. Profit > > to: > > 1. Get them started on admin.fedora. > 2. Teach them about GPG. > 3. Wait and watch 50% of them disappear. > 4. ... > > We have benefited from very low barriers when it comes to the Wiki. The > question is, is the barrier too low? > > Greg had suggested that we just put out on the sign-up page, this is > OPL, like this has: > > http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/ContentLicense > > AIUI, that page is lawyer-dude approved. > > Without the CLA, the Foundation doesn't have any copyright on the > materials, but if we create a mechanism that is a click-through > agreement to use the OPL, aren't we covered for the future of that > content? If they put it on the Wiki, it is OPL, so we can use it, and > who cares about the copyright? Well, only if we want to relicense > *again* someday, and, Lords and Ladies, I hope I am not around if that > happens. > From the OPL's Requirements on Modified Works: * The person making the modifications must be identified and the modifications dated. * Acknowledgement of the original author and publisher if applicable must be retained according to normal academic citation practices. * The location of the original unmodified document must be identified. Won't these requirements cause problems if the copyright isn't assigned to one entity? (The Fedora Foundation? The Fedora Docs Project?) Either different sections/pages of the wiki have different original authors/copyright holders and thus the attributions to the original will be convoluted or the various contributors who modify a section of the wiki will need to be noted (equally convoluted). I don't see this as a problem within the wiki (I think the wiki's internal tracking may be sufficient in this regard) but what happens when a page from the wiki is reprinted in "Fedora Linux in a Nutshell" or similar. Doesn't this lead to tracking of multiple people's claims on the content and printing all of their names in the book? If copyright is assigned, then the attribution is simple: This section is reprinted from www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/ (C) The Fedora Project. -Toshio > [reason] > Why am I in favor of the CLA for all contributors (code and content)? > Because then we _never_have_to_do_this_again_. > > We are looking at having to pull out content from the Wiki from anyone > who doesn't agree to the OPL. Just think about that. > > For the XML in CVS, which you have to have a CLA to get into, if someone > doesn't agree, that's OK, Fedora can fork and relicense as a copyright > holder. Right? > > Our job is to convince every single content contributor that this > license changes is a Good Thing. And it really is. But you know how > people are ... > > So: > > * We risk losing active contributors who don't like our tactics, no > matter what they are. > * We risk future contributors who don't want to get over the barrier. > > A question is: > > * What is fedoraproject.org? > 1. End-user created documentation? > 2. Project-member created documentation? > > If it is 2, then it has to have the same protections and guarantees as > the rest of the code. Without the CLA in place, we cannot guarantee > that the content we are providing is going to remain forever > free/libre. > > > Rather > > than make a closed and unilateral decision, this is now briefly open for > > discussion. The currently-proposed plan is now on the wiki[2], and this wiki > > page is the place to add your comments. You may subscribe to the page if you > > wish to keep track of things. > > > > If the decision is made to go through with this plan (and, no, it isn't a > > vote), > > To be clear, the OPL change to the Wiki is not what is up to vote. > > How we implement that change is up to discussion. Please help us make > the right decision. > > - Karsten > -- > Fedora-marketing-list mailing list > Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-marketing-list mailing list Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
