This is a policy and licensing change that affects anyone who edits the wiki or otherwise contributes to Fedora documentation.
The consensus of the Docs Team, with full Legal support, is to relicense wiki and documentation from the deprecated OPL 1.0 to the CC BY SA 3.0 license. This move brings Fedora on to the mainland of free and open content; tens of millions of pieces of content and media are licensed under the CC BY SA.
Our goal is to do the switchover in about 2 weeks (22 July).
Because of the larger number of contributors involved (thousands), it is too much effort to contact each contributor (copyright holder) to gain permission to relicense. Instead, we are enacting a clause of the contributors license agreement that grants the Fedora Project permission to relicense (sublicense.)
Questions? Discussion? First read this:
http://iquaid.org/2009/07/06/why-relicense-fedora-documentation-and-wiki-con...
... then bring your discussion to fedora-wiki or fedora-advisory-board.
Cheers - Karsten
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 01:02:11AM -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
This is a policy and licensing change that affects anyone who edits the wiki or otherwise contributes to Fedora documentation.
The consensus of the Docs Team, with full Legal support, is to relicense wiki and documentation from the deprecated OPL 1.0 to the CC BY SA 3.0 license. This move brings Fedora on to the mainland of free and open content; tens of millions of pieces of content and media are licensed under the CC BY SA.
Our goal is to do the switchover in about 2 weeks (22 July).
Because of the larger number of contributors involved (thousands), it is too much effort to contact each contributor (copyright holder) to gain permission to relicense. Instead, we are enacting a clause of the contributors license agreement that grants the Fedora Project permission to relicense (sublicense.)
There is likely quite a bit of content that is not CC BY-SA compatible. What do we do about that?
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 09:20 -0500, Ian Weller wrote:
There is likely quite a bit of content that is not CC BY-SA compatible. What do we do about that?
What content is not compatible?
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:22:49AM -0400, Eric Christensen wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 09:20 -0500, Ian Weller wrote:
There is likely quite a bit of content that is not CC BY-SA compatible. What do we do about that?
What content is not compatible?
You're all gonna kill me for stirring up a storm with no data :)
Every now and then I run across something that is obviously not compatible. I don't touch it because there's no obvious licensing whatsoever -- I didn't know we were specifically using the OPL until Karsten's message ;) Somebody tell me what policy we need to enact.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Ian Wellerian@ianweller.org wrote:
Every now and then I run across something that is obviously not compatible. I don't touch it because there's no obvious licensing
Huh? This doesn't make any sense - the wiki and docs.fp.o are licensed OPL, and always has been (for the last three years - always in my book :) ). AFAIK, we're talking about relicensing the wiki, the docs on docs.fp.o, and contemporaneously, RHT relicensing their upstream docs to CC-BY-SA (which seems perfectly reasonable to me).
Correct me if I'm wrong
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:56:01AM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Ian Wellerian@ianweller.org wrote:
Every now and then I run across something that is obviously not compatible. I don't touch it because there's no obvious licensing
Huh? This doesn't make any sense - the wiki and docs.fp.o are licensed OPL, and always has been (for the last three years - always in my book :) ). AFAIK, we're talking about relicensing the wiki, the docs on docs.fp.o, and contemporaneously, RHT relicensing their upstream docs to CC-BY-SA (which seems perfectly reasonable to me).
If you put something in the wiki that *isn't yours* it doesn't magically follow our licensing rules. People do that, either because they don't understand the licensing or because they don't read the guidelines.
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:12:15AM -0500, Ian Weller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:56:01AM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Ian Wellerian@ianweller.org wrote:
Every now and then I run across something that is obviously not compatible. I don't touch it because there's no obvious licensing
Huh? This doesn't make any sense - the wiki and docs.fp.o are licensed OPL, and always has been (for the last three years - always in my book :) ). AFAIK, we're talking about relicensing the wiki, the docs on docs.fp.o, and contemporaneously, RHT relicensing their upstream docs to CC-BY-SA (which seems perfectly reasonable to me).
If you put something in the wiki that *isn't yours* it doesn't magically follow our licensing rules. People do that, either because they don't understand the licensing or because they don't read the guidelines.
Yeah, or don't read the CLA, which specifically states in several cases the work must be original to the contributor, or that they otherwise have the right to give out a copyright license to it.
So let's just make it a policy. If you see something suspicious on the wiki, contact the person who put it there immediately and ask them to confirm they have the right to contribute it to Fedora. If they don't, it must be taken down immediately.
- Karsten
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 10:12 -0500, Ian Weller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:56:01AM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Ian Wellerian@ianweller.org wrote:
Every now and then I run across something that is obviously not compatible. I don't touch it because there's no obvious licensing
Huh? This doesn't make any sense - the wiki and docs.fp.o are licensed OPL, and always has been (for the last three years - always in my book :) ). AFAIK, we're talking about relicensing the wiki, the docs on docs.fp.o, and contemporaneously, RHT relicensing their upstream docs to CC-BY-SA (which seems perfectly reasonable to me).
If you put something in the wiki that *isn't yours* it doesn't magically follow our licensing rules. People do that, either because they don't understand the licensing or because they don't read the guidelines.
That information, when found, should be removed, IMO.
Eric
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 09:32:39AM -0500, Ian Weller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:22:49AM -0400, Eric Christensen wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 09:20 -0500, Ian Weller wrote:
There is likely quite a bit of content that is not CC BY-SA compatible. What do we do about that?
What content is not compatible?
You're all gonna kill me for stirring up a storm with no data :)
Every now and then I run across something that is obviously not compatible. I don't touch it because there's no obvious licensing whatsoever -- I didn't know we were specifically using the OPL until Karsten's message ;) Somebody tell me what policy we need to enact.
If it's on the wiki, it's under the OPL. While I cannot imagine what you've seen that isn't compatible, here's the basic rule of thumb -- if it can be covered by the OPL, it can be covered by the CC BY SA 3.0.
So I guess that means, please excise at-will any non-compliant content. Ask here or fedora-legal-list if you've any questions.
- Karsten
-
Eric Christensen -
Ian Weller -
Jon Stanley -
Karsten Wade