Wikipedia license change

[Karsten Wade]

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 06:47:37PM -0400, John J. McDonough wrote:

> So, what do we gain by going to CC?  What do we loose?  I have heard some 
> folks on Planet objecting to CC for some purposes, but I would need to go 
> back and re-read what their problem was and in what context.

To make one thing clear, we are really talking about (IMO) the CC BY
SA, 3.0 I reckon.  This should make sure we don't *lose* any features
of the OPL in the switch.

Right now the OPL locks us in to a corner where we can only share
content with other OPL sources.  That would be fine if it were a
widely used license, which it is not.

The CC BY SA is very widely used.  Red Hat Legal weighed in previously
that they prefer this license.  My mistaken(?) concerns in the past
about warranty clauses are all covered.

If we make enough noise and a proper cut-off date, we should prevent
any problems from anyone who has based documents on the OPL-licensed
content.

I'm not sure that we will find as much content to draw *in* to Fedora,
but we make our work here much more widely relevant.  For example, if
someone wanted to maintain a brief installation of Fedora article on
Wikipedia or their website, they could source as much as needed from a
CC BY SA licensed Fedora Installation Guide.  The BY assures us that
they'll like back to the truly canonical source.

- 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/20090526/733c4a5f/attachment.sig>