----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ruth Suehle" <rsuehle@xxxxxxxxx> > To: "Robyn Bergeron" <rbergero@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier" <jzb@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Fedora Marketing team" <marketing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, > legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:59:27 AM > Subject: Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Copyright Submission Proposal > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Robyn Bergeron <rbergero@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I would *personally* prefer the most restrictive of the CC licenses (CC > > > BY-NC-ND 4.0): > > > > > > https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ > > > > > > #2: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 is listed in > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensingas a license that isn't acceptable > > for Fedora. I realize you're citing 4.0 > > here, and we don't have guidance on 4.0 in the wiki, but I have to imagine > > it's not going to be much of a change. The NC part is still NC... as you > > said, it's the most restrictive, and at least in my opinion, > > restrictiveness isn't exactly freedom-enabling :) > > > > > > > As mentioned on the marketing list earlier, the Red Hat legal team wrote > terms of use for us, which croberts thinks must have gotten deleted in a > migration/upgrade. But they specify Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike > 3.0 Unported License > <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/>("CC-BY-SA"). Yes, and it's useful to have those published on the site so that readers understand the terms under which can reuse/remix the content. I think Joe was coming a bit more from the "contribution" angle, though of course the contribute and use terms need to line up. So we def. need to get the terms of use back on - and make sure that we're verifying somehow that people submitting content are aware of the license under which they're submitting or have signed the FPCA or etc. IANAL, and all that jazz. -robyn > > Ruth > -- marketing mailing list marketing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
