This question came up at a FUDCon discussion about the wiki. The wiki globally asserts that pages are licensed under the OPL, and we license in that fashion pursuant to contributors having signed the CLA. However, in the FUDCon: namespace, we allow the public to edit pages, because that's the nature of FUDCon. We do not require people to become Fedora account holders or CLA signers to attend FUDCon, but those people must be free to pre-register, thus these pages must be editable by non-authenticated persons. These edits by non-authenticated persons will be labeled with an IP address. Notably, it's possible that a Fedora account holder (who could authenticate) might accidentally edit these pages in a non-authenticated way. The effect would be that the edit would look like any other non-authenticated edit even though presumably the Fedora account holder fully intended it to be an authenticated edit and thus covered by the CLA, and so forth. The wiki does not provide the means for a non-authenticated person to confirm OPL licensing. It does warn anyone who saves an edit that their work may be edited and that material must not be copied onto the wiki without proper permission, and links to the Legal:Licenses page where the OPL licensing statement lives. But there is no statement to the effect that "By clicking the Save Page button, you agree that your submission will be licensed under the terms found at _____". Since we switched to MediaWiki it's possible that we've simply failed to provide an equivalent language transfer in this case. So my questions are as follows: 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? 2. If the answer to #1 is "yes," should we attach a statement of affirmative licensing prominently near the "Save Page" button? 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? My hope is that the answers to #1 and #2 are "yes," but I wanted those answers to emerge here on fedora-legal-list if possible. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug