Wikipedia license change

[Eric Christensen]

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 16:01, Karsten Wade <kwade at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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 license says further works would have be shared under the
same OR SIMILAR license which would definitely be more flexible for
further works.

>
> 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

+1 from me.