Fedora websites and licensing

[Paul W. Frields]

On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 19:09 -0700, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 15:10 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > 
> > IIRC, part of the question was what license the "code" involved in the 
> > website fell under.  That is does the css and templates for the websites 
> > also fall under the OPL?
> 
> Exactly the point of this thread.  The *content* is under the OPL.  The
> markup around just the content is probably covered by that OPL.  But the
> rest of the site (CSS, Python, TurboGears, HTML, etc.) has not been
> licensed.  It is, however, a contribution, so is covered at a minimum by
> the CLA.
> 
> Do we have the right to license all those contributions at this point?
> That is, without the permission of the contributors?

Before we worry about that question, do we still have access to all the
contributors in question, and can we get them to agree to an appropriate
license?  The OPL may be poorly suited to code, but certainly we should
be able to get people to agree to something functional like the GPLv2+.

And this should serve as a reminder that when originating any sort of
code it's a good idea to declare a license for it! ;-)

-- 
Paul W. Frields                                http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20080523/336697d5/attachment.sig>