On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 01:55:44PM -0400, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Brockmeier" <jzb(a)redhat.com>
> To: "marketing >> Fedora Marketing team"
<marketing(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 10:42:03 AM
> Subject: Copyright Submission Proposal
>
> Hey all,
>
> To streamline this whole thing, can we just agree to publish all content
> on the magazine (and ask authors to agree) on a single Creative Commons
> license?
#1: Doesn't the FPCA provide for this anyway, in the absence of some standardized
agreement?
It seems like a lot of overhead in terms of keeping track of who has
agreed to publish under those terms. It's either a new FAS group
where people have agreed to a license, or revalidating existing fas
groups, or... just checking as we already do to make sure people
have signed the FPCA. (I assume that Magazine is hooked up to FAS in
some fashion.)
If this is a hooked-up-to-FAS thing covered by the FPCA (which seems
to be the case but someone tell me if that's wrong or dubious), then
yes, the default license is a Creative Commons license (more
precisely, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported
license along with our time-honored passive-aggressive "waiver of the
right to enforce, and an agreement not to assert, Section 4d of
CC-BY-SA against the Fedora Community, to the fullest extent permitted
by applicable law" along with "a grant of additional copyright
permission to distribute or make available to the public a copy of a
GPL-Covered Derivative of the Contribution under the terms of the
applicable version of the GPL, with no conditions of CC-BY-SA that
would be treated as "further restrictions" within the meaning of the
applicable version of the GPL surviving such distribution with respect
to that copy.").
I should note that the FPCA is designed to be consistent with
individual choice of non-default licenses. However, I think it would
be odd as a policy matter to allow NC-ND as an explicit licensing
choice.
> I would *personally* prefer the most restrictive of the CC
licenses (CC
> BY-NC-ND 4.0):
>
>
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
#2: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 is listed in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing as a license
that isn't acceptable for Fedora. I realize you're citing 4.0 here, and we
don't have guidance on 4.0 in the wiki, but I have to imagine it's not going to be
much of a change. The NC part is still NC... as you said, it's the most restrictive,
and at least in my opinion, restrictiveness isn't exactly freedom-enabling :)
With the caveat that I'm hearing about this for the first time and
completely out of context, the NC-ND proposal actually seems worse
than going back to the horrific days of the Open Publication
License. :)
Regarding the 4.0 series, this is something that should be looked
at. My general impression is that the 4.0 CC licenses are an
improvement over the 3.0 series.
- RF