Wiki not editable?

[Josh Boyer]

On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 22:23 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2006 at 08:59:34PM -0500, Patrick W. Barnes wrote:
> > > It says "Texts contributed after 2006-02-19 or by members of the
> > > EditGroup are the licensed under the terms of the Open Publication
> > > License v1.0 without options, unless otherwise noted."  And it does not
> > > say _who_ can otherwise note.  While I don't personally agree with this
> > > specific instance, I also don't see where licensing a page under a
> > > different license is not allowed.  The wording is a bit ambiguous.
> > The "unless otherwise noted" is intended to allow the Board, assorted
> > committees, etc. to handle special cases where the OPL cannot apply, such
> > as pages where the ACLs have been loosened to allow anyone to contribute
> > without granting a copyright license. It is not a manner for contributors
> > to circumvent our licensing requirements. The Fedora Project holds a
> 
> You must admit it is ambiguous. Or actually, I'm inclined to say "doesn't
> seem ambigous at all, but rather clearly states that some content may be
> licensed differently". 

Yes, I tend to agree.  While I'm certainly aware of the intention of
those words, they are indeed ambiguous.  IMHO, the "unless otherwise
noted" part either needs to be removed or otherwise clarified.

> 
> > copyright license for anything that is submitted by a contributor with a
> > signed CLA. Using the power of that copyright license, the Fedora Project
> > applies the OPL without options to documentation and website
> > contributions. That right is not revocable.
> 
> Unless I'm misunderstanding, the copyright license wording is not so broad
> as that. Specifically, it says:
> 
>   2. Contributor Grant of License. You hereby grant to Red Hat, Inc., on
>      behalf of the Project, and to recipients of software distributed by the
>      Project:
> 
>       (a) a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty
>       free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative
>       works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and
>       distribute your Contribution and such derivative works; and,
> 
>       [... other, patent-related stuff ...]
> 
> While Red Hat can sublicense under this grant, it doesn't seem to say "may
> completely relicense".

I also agree with that.

My intentions here are not to be inflammatory.  Rather they are to
highlight a potential problem that should be resolved sooner rather than
later.

The issue has been forwarded to Max and the Board.  I look forward to
their leadership on this issue and hope things can be clarified soon.

josh