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-devel-list or fedora-advisory-board.
Cheers - Karsten
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Am 07.07.2009 09:58, schrieb Karsten Wade:
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.
Simple question:
What are the main diferences beetween OPL 1.0 and the new CC BY SA 3.0 license.
Best Regards:
Jochen Schmitt
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 07:52:47PM +0200, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
What are the main diferences beetween OPL 1.0 and the new CC BY SA 3.0 license.
I cannot provide a legalistic difference, except to note that the OPL was written by a non-lawyer and has been explained to me as containing legal flaws, whereas the CC licenses are lawyer-written, have iterated a few times, and are generally well used/tested.
Regarding features, that also takes a deeper legal understanding than I can provide. The CC seems to be more liberal in allowing derivatives to be sub-licensed with a similar license, but that is just an understanding have and is not a legal opinion.
The biggest differences I think I cover in my article[1], namely:
1. OPL is deprecated, unsupported, and not lawyer preferred; CC is very popular, supported, and lawyer preffered. ** More chances to reuse CC licensed content. ** Makes our content more useful for other people to blend in to a CC work.
2. Very little open content exists under the OPL by comparison to the CC. The OPL is a very small content island, the CC is a very large content sub-continent.
- Karsten
[1] http://iquaid.org/2009/07/06/why-relicense-fedora-documentation-and-wiki-con...