Docs Meeting 2009-08-20 IRC log

[Richard Fontana]

>From the IRC log:

> 00:38:30 <rudi> ianweller -- we can't use the icon
> 00:38:36 <quaid> +1 to button website
> 00:38:40 <ianweller> *thud*
> 00:38:42 <quaid> not for publican
> 00:38:46 <Sparks> rudi: I'd prefer that the license information go into the official release but I know you know that.
> 00:38:48 <ianweller> well we can for the wiki
> 00:38:52 <rudi> We can't use it for the wiki
> 00:38:55 <ianweller> why not
> 00:39:03 <quaid> rudi: I understood Richard to be talking about the legal notice for Publican
> 00:39:04 <ianweller> sure we can't redistribute it but we're not
> 00:39:10 <ianweller> we're just hotlinking it

There were two issues raised by the CC-BY-SA button.  First,
regardless of our own policies, it is not clear that we could package
the button icon with Publican without special permission from Creative
Commons. I recently spoke with a lawyer for Creative Commons, and I
believe Creative Commons would be willing to provide such permission.

Second, Fedora Legal (spot) determined that use of the button in
Fedora packages, and in fedoraproject.org web pages, is inconsistent
with Fedora guidelines concerning acceptable terms for content.  This
seems to me to be correct based on what I know about past treatment of
content issues that come up in Fedora packaging.  (However, I think it
would be a good idea for Fedora to provide a clearer statement of the
established policy on freely-redistributable content.)

> 00:39:58 <ianweller> augghhghhggghsdoagosrgjwjgoajldfjksfakgherjkojar <-- what is going through my mind right now
[...]
> 00:40:01 <Sparks> the Fedora logo is an unfree element and yet we use it on the webpages
[...]
> 00:40:07 <quaid> so is ServerBeach's logo
> 00:40:12 <ianweller> fedora logo is non-redistributable
> 00:40:15 <rudi> Sparks -- yes, but it's an unfree element that we own
> 00:40:16 <quaid> and Dell's
> 00:40:23 <ianweller> we don't own the dell logo
> 00:40:34 <quaid> http://fedoraproject.org/sponsors

There is definitely some basis here for saying that the policy does
not seem to be applied consistently, or should be articulated in such
a way as to explain these exceptions.  

I can see some rationale for distinguishing the CC-BY-SA button from
the sponsor logos and the Fedora logo. The sponsor logo is used solely
to provide an elaborate representation of the sponsor's name.  The CC
analogue would be the cc-within-a-circle logo, used in a context where
it refers specifically to Creative Commons the organization.  The
CC-BY-SA button is a restrictively-licensed image that does not merely
refer to the name of its owner.

One could also argue that, based on some sort of meta-principle,
Fedora is legitimately not subject to its own guidelines on free
content. (This is rather unsatisfactory, since surely Fedora would not
use the same logic to justify distributing non-free software.)

Anyway, this is a difficult issue.  I suggest taking it up with Spot.

- Richard