Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481 ------- Additional Comments From jfearn@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-02-07 20:03 EST ------- (In reply to comment #90) > Curious as to why the GFDL is being used for the -docs? Of course, this is not > a Fedora document, and the license choice is at the discretion of the upstream. > But if you ever wanted Fedora to publish the how-to documentation included in > this package, it needs to be under the OPL without restrictions. If you want to > leave that concern for the future, Red Hat (as the copyright holder) can always > relicense or dual license. But since you are addressing the licensing in the > -brand packages, thought you might want to handle this one at the same time. The default license, GFDL, was chosen because the brand packages each use a different free(ish) license and I thought adding one more free license to the mix couldn't hurt :) My method was to pick one of the "Good Licenses" from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-19fc3ef10add085a28cb06784dc34ef8b05a9bd6-2 that wasn't covered by any of the brand packages. The docs in this package use the default brand & license, thus they get the GFDL. I'd like to change the default license to Creative Commons Share-Alike (CC-SA) v3.0 as it's the only documentation license I could find that is accepted as free by Debian, and so would enable the widest distribution of this package. See http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review