handling attributions for Docs

[Christopher Curran]

Karsten Wade wrote:
> Now we have a clear need for attributing source information: thanks to
> being relicensed under CC BY SA 3.0 means we can import lots of good
> content and so we're likely to do so.  Efficient attribution is now
> important.
>
> There are two parts to this discussion:
>
> * Technical - how it works in DocBook and Publican
> * Brand - how does the Fedora Documentation Project want to attribute
>
> I was going to look at it from a social angle, but I think the brand
> angle overrides the social angle.  Read on for more.
>
> == Technical proposal ==
>
> To handle copyright attribution, I recommend we adopt this approach:
>
> * For single or a few imports of a chunk of attributable content, use
>   a <footnote>.  Attribution happens on the page it occurs.
>
>   Example: Pulling a description of AES encryption from Wikipedia for
>   the Fedora Security Guide.
>
>   
Footnotes come from one school of attribution. There is another school 
of thought that preaches endnotes. I would recommend neither and suggest 
we go with a page of attribution and thanks were we mention various 
voluntary and 'acquired' contributions. This gives us a wider scope for 
referencing conversations, technical input, code, and other 
miscellaneous contribution. Useful as we will be without a formal and 
ridged format which would normally exclude those types of contributions.
> * For longer imports, blends, or remixing of content, use
>   <legalnotice>.
>
>   Example: All of the people who work on a guide over the years would
>   be lists in a standard format under the primary Fedora/Red Hat legal
>   language.
>
>   
That isn't relevant, really. If something is exceedingly, heavily 
rewritten it counts as an original work. Credit where credit is due, of 
course. However, if the original is unrecognisable all it does is make 
notices longer and unwieldy.
> For the <legalnotice> usage, we would need:
>
> * A standard format for all attributions, to make it fair, clear,
>   equitable.  Alphabetical, for example.
>   
Always by importance. Alphabetical is rubbish for translations and other 
languages.
> * A change to Publican(?) to look for and use a file,
>   en-US/Attribution.xml, if it is present.  This allows attribution to
>   be kept within the main document source tree.
>   
+1
> == Brand proposal ==
>
> This is a proposal only affecting Fedora-branded works.  An upstream,
> such as the "Linux Security Guide"
> (https://fedorahosted.org/securityguide/), can attribute as it sees
> fit, just as a downstream "Red Hat Enteprise Linux Security Guide" can
> attribute as it sees fit.
>
> Currently, for some works, we have primary authors in a long list on
> the front cover of a work.  We've long discussed swapping that for
> "Fedora Documentation Project".
>
>   
In all writing projects there is always one to three actual writers. 
Primary writers should be up the front and secondary, tertiary and other 
contributors up the back/front in a references/attribution section.
> Especially as we work with a larger group, the list of authors on the
> front cover grows.  It visually competes with the Fedora branding.
>
>   
And we should note that an important part of Open Source is personal 
gain. People's names are their brand. Most people involved in Open 
Source want their name present in patches and so forth as they are 
trying to grow their own brands. This should be encouraged, not hidden 
away. It brings personal pride to the work involved and enforces 
accountability.
> In other parts of the Fedora Project, we don't see the authors
> presented in that fashion.  Anaconda is "Anaconda Team
> <anaconda-devel at redhat.com>".  This is more the norm for FLOSS
> projects.
>
>   
There is often an AUTHORS page or similar included in the code or the 
program. Man pages are full of personal attributions. We should no 
abstract or removed this for previously mentioned reasons.
> This is how a "Fedora Docs Team" focus looks in practice:
>
> http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/f12/en-US/html/
>
> A good bonus to that would be having either a link to the project page
> or text inline that links to the mailing list or project page.
>
> Another idea is to have a notice in the authorship/editorship section,
> "For full attribution of contributions to this work, refer to the
> [legalnotice]."
>   
I agree, but we should keep a focus on primary contributors.
> One reason for picking a standard is to set the expectation for how we
> attribute under the Fedora brand.  When we put up individual names, it
> creates a competitive space.  External content originators that are
> remixed may demand front-page attribution.  This causes the visual
> appeal to diminish while increasing the attribution maintenance.
>
>   
If the remix is sufficient, we can give them a middle finger and suggest 
they take a hike. The world of publishing and technical documentation is 
nothing like the world of academic writing. Attribution is handled 
differently. If a work is sufficiently distinct it counts as an original 
work. Only original or patented ideas /must/ be attributed. I'm not 
saying we act like jerks to the community, I am just saying we don't 
have to comply when they act like jerks.

I think we want to create a competitive space. We want to work as a team 
but really bring credit to our standout players. We want to put them out 
there and say, "This person is really great". That may change from 
version to version and that is a Good Thing.

> Having _all_ Fedora-branded guides follow the same standard that puts
> the Fedora brand first does the best service to the Fedora Project.
> It gives us the least headaches.  I think it is the right thing to do.
>
> What do you think?
>
> - Karsten
>   
IANAL

Chris