-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 04:22:15PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 03:50:51PM -0400, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
> Creative Commons is pushing the use of their 4.0 license (which I have no qualms
with). Has/can legal review this new license as a drop-in replacement for the 3.0
license we are currently using for Fedora Documentation (with the waiving the rights to
enforce Section 4d)? I'm unsure of any benefits or regressions we would have (I
haven't personally compared the two and IANAL).
It can't be a (pure) drop-in replacement (you can't 'relicense'
existing CC BY SA 3.0 stuff) and the FPCA still makes CC BY SA 3.0 (+
moral rights waiver etc.) the default content license. The latter is
possibly worth changing.
Hmm, I had forgotten that the FPCA specifies CC BY-SA 3.0. I wonder if it's worth the
hassle up upgrading that to 4.0 and further wonder what happens when we get to the super
great x.y version and want to change.
I have personally concluded that the 4.0 licenses are at least
marginally better than the 3.0 Unported ones, FWIW.
Marginally meaning we probably shouldn't worry with it for now?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----