[fab] Fedora Logo versus OPL License

[Patrick W. Barnes]

On Tuesday 23 May 2006 10:00, "Stephen John Smoogen" <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hmmm, Mark Webbink should probably give us a quick law lesson if he
> has the chance.
>
> I remember getting a quick lesson years ago by another RH counsel
> about licensing.. but I have slept a lot since then, and I could be
> stickign 20 things together in the wrong order. What I recall is that
> there are some issues about referencing draft documents in a licensing
> deal unless the items are labeled correctly and  that both items have
> a clause saying that the party righting the license has the right to
> change the license without notification (and party B is bound by those
> changes). If not someone who licenses there stuff under a broken draft
> can use it and not be covered under any fixes.

There aren't any drafts in the actual legal specifications.  Chitlesh was 
pointing to a draft FAQ about Fedora Documentation licensing.  The FAQ is not 
an actual legal reference.

-- 
Patrick "The N-Man" Barnes
nman64 at n-man.com

http://www.n-man.com/

LinkedIn:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/nman64

Have I been helpful?  Rate my assistance!
http://rate.affero.net/nman64/
-- 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/attachments/20060523/bd3166bf/attachment.sig>