[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  2008-02-11 18:50 EST -------
(In reply to comment #94)
> (In reply to comment #93)
> > 
> > - Added GFDL to License to cover content and Book_Template directories.
> > - Included GFDL txt file
> 
> I want to reiterate a point here because it may save time and hassle in the
> future if we resolve this now.
> 
> You may recall that when the Fedora Project was formed,

lol Sometimes I think you forget just how long you have been around! I certainly
haven't been around that long :D

> all the Docs Project
> work was under the GFDL.  This was done as an assumptive move by Project
> founders, they never asked Legal what license to use, and it turned out to be a
> mistake.  Red Hat Legal (Mark Webbink) required us to re-license all the
> content, which was a fair bit of work.
> 
> It is not clear to me if the upstream of publican (in the form of Red Hat's
> Content Services team) is actually permitted to use the GFDL.  It sounds as if
> you chose to pick a good license from the Fedora Project list and Red Hat Legal
> may not have been involved in the license choice?

The default template is not used by the Red hat Documentation Team, they use a
different brand licensed under the OPL + Restrictions.

The default brand is intended for use by the general open source community and
not Red hat or Fedora specific documentation.

> Based on the previous commit, it sounds as if Book_Template is covered by the
> GFDL.  I can see in the Book_Info.xml file that Common_Content/Legal_Notice.xml
> is called by the template.

Ahhh! Nicely spotted! I should have split out the Book_Template in to each of
the brands when I split out the other common content. I will put up new packages
today with the per brand Book_Templates.

>
https://fedorahosted.org/documentation-devel/browser/trunk/publican/Book_Template/en-US/Book_Info.xml
> 
> Does that make just the template under the GFDL or ...?  If the template is
> under the GFDL, I'm unclear on how Fedora is going to use the tool.  If I use it
> to make a book for Fedora, but the book *cannot* be under the GFDL due to
> Legal's previous restrictions, how does the license affect the content I am
> going to write into that template?  If it makes the content GFDL, then that
> template cannot be used for Fedora content.
> 
> This is why I have been advocating across the board usage of the OPL without
> restrictions for all parts of publican, from the tools to the templates to the
> branding files.  True, there are other licenses that a package can use and have
> that package be in Fedora (the distro).  But if you want the package to be
> useful to Fedora (the Project), this mix of licenses does not make it clear that
> it *can* be used.

publican-fedora is licensed under the OPL, no restrictions, any content that is
being used from the main package will be duplicated in to the fedora specific
brand package. I think I have it all duplicated now, but i will take another
look over it to check again.

Thanks for looking over this package and highlighting things I missed splitting
out .. maybe there is something to this "many eyes" philosophy :)



-- 
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.