Separating licensing policy from packaging guidelines

[Karsten Wade]

On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 07:12 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>  Brett 
> Smith from FSF in a offline discussion pointed that we don't explicitly 
> define the licensing for documentation. We need to make that clear. 

This is definitely a case of answers being present, but not on the page
that matters.  In this consolidation, let's look at moving some/all of
the licensing discussion from the DocsProject namespace to either the
Legal or FAQ namespaces:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/Licensing/FAQ
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/Licensing/Discussion
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject/Licensing/StepsToOPL

Maybe the background information should remain where it is (under a
newly minted DocsProject/Licensing page that doesn't exist), and the FAQ
can move to a new Legal/FAQ page.

I do think we should keep the legal FAQs separate from the main FAQ; we
can just have one or several deep links from FAQ to Legal/FAQ.

- Karsten
-- 
   Karsten Wade, 108 Editor       ^     Fedora Documentation Project 
 Sr. Developer Relations Mgr.     |  fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
   quaid.108.redhat.com           |          gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
-------------- 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/20070519/151fb877/attachment.sig>