Re: [Fedora-legal-list] Truly public namespaces on Fedora wiki

On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 08:49 -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote: > 1. Can a non-authenticated person agree to the OPL license when > making a submission, such that the agreement is meaningful and > enforceable (or at least free of risk for the Fedora Project) > without personally identifying information? In the limited boundary set of people signing their name to attend FUDCon, yes. In a larger set of data, possibly not. > 2. If the answer to #1 is "yes," should we attach a statement of > affirmative licensing prominently near the "Save Page" button? It could not hurt. > 3. If the answer to #1 is "no," should we alter FUDCon:, and any > other namespace on the wiki designed to be publicly editable, to > provide their contents under public domain or no license, and > notate that on the Legal:Licenses page? I would rather have any publicly editable pages include prominent notice near the "Save Page" button that by hitting the "Save Page" button, you're indicating that all changes made are done under the OPL license, and if you do not agree with these terms, you should not make changes. I'd also like to minimize the amount of namespaces which are designed to be publicly editable without signing the CLA.