-----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)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=aXIB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----