[Bug 427481] Review Request: publican - publication tool chain

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: publican - publication tool chain


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427481





------- Additional Comments From jfearn at redhat.com  2008-02-07 20:03 EST -------
(In reply to comment #90)
> Curious as to why the GFDL is being used for the -docs?  Of course, this is not
> a Fedora document, and the license choice is at the discretion of the upstream.
>  But if you ever wanted Fedora to publish the how-to documentation included in
> this package, it needs to be under the OPL without restrictions.  If you want to
> leave that concern for the future, Red Hat (as the copyright holder) can always
> relicense or dual license.  But since you are addressing the licensing in the
> -brand packages, thought you might want to handle this one at the same time.

The default license, GFDL, was chosen because the brand packages each use a
different free(ish) license and I thought adding one more free license to the
mix couldn't hurt :)

My method was to pick one of the "Good Licenses" from
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-19fc3ef10add085a28cb06784dc34ef8b05a9bd6-2
 that wasn't covered by any of the brand packages.

The docs in this package use the default brand & license, thus they get the GFDL.

I'd like to change the default license to Creative Commons Share-Alike (CC-SA)
v3.0 as it's the only documentation license I could find that is accepted as
free by Debian, and so would enable the widest distribution of this package. See
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.