I understand there are a few types of CC BY SA 3.0 license, ported and unported.
http://monitor.creativecommons.org/Unported
Which do we want to use when relicening all Fedora content and as our default license choice (for now)? Or is it really a three-way choice?
1. Ported only 2. Unported only 3. Ported where it exists, otherwise unported
Thanks - Karsten
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Karsten Wadekwade@redhat.com wrote:
Which do we want to use when relicening all Fedora content and as our default license choice (for now)? Or is it really a three-way choice?
Call me an id10t, but I'm not sure what the differences are. Is it just that the text of the license is adapted to a specific country's laws? Or is there something more going on that I'm not sure of???
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 10:47:28PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Karsten Wadekwade@redhat.com wrote:
Which do we want to use when relicening all Fedora content and as our default license choice (for now)? Or is it really a three-way choice?
Call me an id10t, but I'm not sure what the differences are. Is it just that the text of the license is adapted to a specific country's laws? Or is there something more going on that I'm not sure of???
Yeah, that's my read. Ported have been localized, presumably either in a local language or perhaps even legally vetted ... I'm not clear which.
- Karsten
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Karsten Wadekwade@redhat.com wrote:
Yeah, that's my read. Ported have been localized, presumably either in a local language or perhaps even legally vetted ... I'm not clear which.
So my take from the peanut gallery is that since RHT is a US corporation, we have to use either the US or unported license for all of the RHT-originated docs.
Looking at http://creativecommons.org/international/ it appears that the actual text of the license gets changed to jive with the legal systems of particular countries.
Just my $0.02 from the peanut gallery :)
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Karsten Wadekwade@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 10:47:28PM -0400, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Karsten Wadekwade@redhat.com wrote:
Which do we want to use when relicening all Fedora content and as our default license choice (for now)? Or is it really a three-way choice?
Call me an id10t, but I'm not sure what the differences are. Is it just that the text of the license is adapted to a specific country's laws? Or is there something more going on that I'm not sure of???
Yeah, that's my read. Ported have been localized, presumably either in a local language or perhaps even legally vetted ... I'm not clear which.
Both; ports are done by lawyers and are intended to use local legal terminology so as to be more familiar to local courts and compatible with local copyright and contract law nuance.
(My two cents, not really deeply thought through, nor legal advice as I am not a lawyer: the GPL has done fine without porting for two decades. I think using ported CC licenses merely confuses and complicates with no appreciable benefit, so tend to recommend the unported when people ask me this question.)
Luis
Any thoughts about this?
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 07:27:36PM -0700, Karsten Wade wrote:
I understand there are a few types of CC BY SA 3.0 license, ported and unported.
http://monitor.creativecommons.org/Unported
Which do we want to use when relicening all Fedora content and as our default license choice (for now)? Or is it really a three-way choice?
- Ported only
- Unported only
- Ported where it exists, otherwise unported
Thanks - Karsten
Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener http://quaid.fedorapeople.org AD0E0C41
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 10:11:39AM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 07/11/2009 06:43 PM, Karsten Wade wrote:
Any thoughts about this?
I'm inclined to agree with Luis. I don't see any benefit to the ported CC license at this time.
Thanks; somehow I missed Luis originak reply as well. Unported it is!
- Karsten