RPM Guide and RPM Max

[Karsten Wade]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 09:12:35AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> 
> Do we need to update both, or is it sufficient to get all coverage
> into the new RPM Guide, and make that our focus?

+1

A single, canonical RPM guide should be the goal.  As Rahul said,
updating content from the wiki is important, much has changed.
Concepts need vetting, too.  Old locations should be deprecated,
including the wiki content, once it has been moved.  Too much is
inaccurate and scattered.  One of the best services we can do for
rpm.org is to give them a single, canonical upstream to steer.

> As for licensing:
> 
> * Maximum RPM is under OPL + exception (no paper publication without
> express permission).  It has one author, Ed Bailey, and the copyright
> is owned by Red Hat, probably making re-licensing easy.  (We ask, and
> Legal approves, maybe following a discussion, likely brief and simple,
> with Red Hat Content Services.)

I joined and emailed rpm-maint about this; I haven't seen my join yet
(held for approval?), nor the email I sent.

I'm compiling a single list on the wiki of all the content in Fedora
and in Red Hat, and now rpm.org, that we want to relicense.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Relicensing_OPL_to_CC_BY_SA#Specific_content_to_be_relicensed

I'm seeing the OPL all over the place - Infrastructure's CSI work, the
system-config-* content, etc.  I don't think we can do the update in a
single swooping move, we'll still find stragglers for some time.

But I don't think I need to take each and every guide individually to
Red Hat Legal or Content Services, a list should be sufficient.  I'll
confirm that with Richard Fontana and Michael Hideo-Smith (after I
compile it a bit), but I heard a clear mandate from Legal to move
entirely from the OPL to CC BY SA 3.0 Unported in all cases.  Content
Services also wanted to move all and not selectively.  They don't want
any stragglers, either.

> * RPM Guide is under OPL with no exceptions.  It has a single author,
> Eric Foster-Johnson, whom we'd need to ask to relicense the material.

Ah, good point.  He did that at our request, and it is covered by the
CLA, but even simple courtesy says, let's ask.  I take care of that.

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten 'quaid' Wade, Community Gardener
http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
AD0E0C41
-------------- 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-docs-list/attachments/20090716/e77ab48b/attachment.sig>