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 2008-02-11 18:50 EST ------- (In reply to comment #94) > (In reply to comment #93) > > > > - Added GFDL to License to cover content and Book_Template directories. > > - Included GFDL txt file > > I want to reiterate a point here because it may save time and hassle in the > future if we resolve this now. > > You may recall that when the Fedora Project was formed, lol Sometimes I think you forget just how long you have been around! I certainly haven't been around that long :D > all the Docs Project > work was under the GFDL. This was done as an assumptive move by Project > founders, they never asked Legal what license to use, and it turned out to be a > mistake. Red Hat Legal (Mark Webbink) required us to re-license all the > content, which was a fair bit of work. > > It is not clear to me if the upstream of publican (in the form of Red Hat's > Content Services team) is actually permitted to use the GFDL. It sounds as if > you chose to pick a good license from the Fedora Project list and Red Hat Legal > may not have been involved in the license choice? The default template is not used by the Red hat Documentation Team, they use a different brand licensed under the OPL + Restrictions. The default brand is intended for use by the general open source community and not Red hat or Fedora specific documentation. > Based on the previous commit, it sounds as if Book_Template is covered by the > GFDL. I can see in the Book_Info.xml file that Common_Content/Legal_Notice.xml > is called by the template. Ahhh! Nicely spotted! I should have split out the Book_Template in to each of the brands when I split out the other common content. I will put up new packages today with the per brand Book_Templates. > https://fedorahosted.org/documentation-devel/browser/trunk/publican/Book_Template/en-US/Book_Info.xml > > Does that make just the template under the GFDL or ...? If the template is > under the GFDL, I'm unclear on how Fedora is going to use the tool. If I use it > to make a book for Fedora, but the book *cannot* be under the GFDL due to > Legal's previous restrictions, how does the license affect the content I am > going to write into that template? If it makes the content GFDL, then that > template cannot be used for Fedora content. > > This is why I have been advocating across the board usage of the OPL without > restrictions for all parts of publican, from the tools to the templates to the > branding files. True, there are other licenses that a package can use and have > that package be in Fedora (the distro). But if you want the package to be > useful to Fedora (the Project), this mix of licenses does not make it clear that > it *can* be used. publican-fedora is licensed under the OPL, no restrictions, any content that is being used from the main package will be duplicated in to the fedora specific brand package. I think I have it all duplicated now, but i will take another look over it to check again. Thanks for looking over this package and highlighting things I missed splitting out .. maybe there is something to this "many eyes" philosophy :) -- 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