Hi,
> I've not edited the page as I'd like the fedora-legal
people's
> perspective on this.
Hmm, ok. Here's my thoughts:
* Some of the content will be written/created by LPM (possibly all of
the content). Accordingly, I don't think we get much say in how they use
it, aside from the normal trademark usage considerations.
I'd have thought that we (Fedora people) would be in a better position
to write about F12 than LPM. As it is advertising Fedora, I think Fedora
should have more say in what is done with it.
* For anything that Fedora owns, we should be sure it is available
under
acceptable licensing terms, but for things like screenshots, I doubt
there is much concern, as that sort of thing is rather ubiquitous.
You'd think that - I know some companies hate screenshots being taken
and frequently mock up rather than show production...
* I think ultimately, if Fedora contributors end up authoring
content
for this magazine, they should do so under licensing terms that they are
comfortable with, but I don't think it is necessary to mandate it.
Here I'd disagree. While for software, folks are happy for anyone to use
it as they like. However, for written work, people become protective. It
is better have something which says "by contributing this piece, you are
giving Fedora to publish once and republish once by any means". That way
the author knows exactly what terms they are contributing by.
I know it's not ideal, but this is publishing and to paraphrase and old
(and long gone) editor friend, "you live and die by the words you use".
TTFN
Paul
--
Sie können mich aufreizen und wirklich heiß machen!