FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Advisory Board

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-22-2008, 09:38 PM
"Jonathan Roberts"
 
Default Fedora websites and licensing

Hey,

At this week's websites meeting, we discussed the issue of what
license our website code and content comes under. You can see the
discussion from 16:58 on the log at
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-websites-list/2008-May/msg00268.html

Basically, we'd like to know what license the website is currently
under, whether this applies to both content and code, and finally, are
we happy with this license or is there a different license that we'd
like to use and implement?

Hope this is the right location for this post.

Best,

Jon

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 05-22-2008, 09:52 PM
"Tom "spot" Callaway"
 
Default Fedora websites and licensing

On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 22:38 +0100, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
> Hey,
>
> At this week's websites meeting, we discussed the issue of what
> license our website code and content comes under. You can see the
> discussion from 16:58 on the log at
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-websites-list/2008-May/msg00268.html
>
> Basically, we'd like to know what license the website is currently
> under, whether this applies to both content and code, and finally, are
> we happy with this license or is there a different license that we'd
> like to use and implement?

I know everything on the wiki is under the
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/OPL. I'm 95% sure that all
of the non-wiki content on the fedoraproject.org host is as well.

I can't speak to any sort of "happiness" around this situation.

~spot



_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 05-22-2008, 09:58 PM
"Jonathan Roberts"
 
Default Fedora websites and licensing

2008/5/22 Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com>:
> On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 22:38 +0100, Jonathan Roberts wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> At this week's websites meeting, we discussed the issue of what
>> license our website code and content comes under. You can see the
>> discussion from 16:58 on the log at
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-websites-list/2008-May/msg00268.html
>>
>> Basically, we'd like to know what license the website is currently
>> under, whether this applies to both content and code, and finally, are
>> we happy with this license or is there a different license that we'd
>> like to use and implement?
>
> I know everything on the wiki is under the
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/OPL. I'm 95% sure that all
> of the non-wiki content on the fedoraproject.org host is as well.
>
> I can't speak to any sort of "happiness" around this situation.

Ah, I believe you were actually recommended as someone who might be
able to find out (or already know) and clearly you did!

You were also recommended as someone who might be able to get us a
recommendation about what might be best for the websites purposes, if
we ask nicely I think RH legal might also have come up in the
conversation... what do you think? Or is there a better direction for
us to head in?

Best,

Jon

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 05-22-2008, 10:10 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Fedora websites and licensing

Jonathan Roberts wrote:

2008/5/22 Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com>:

I know everything on the wiki is under the
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses/OPL. I'm 95% sure that all
of the non-wiki content on the fedoraproject.org host is as well.

I can't speak to any sort of "happiness" around this situation.


Ah, I believe you were actually recommended as someone who might be
able to find out (or already know) and clearly you did!

You were also recommended as someone who might be able to get us a
recommendation about what might be best for the websites purposes, if
we ask nicely I think RH legal might also have come up in the
conversation... what do you think? Or is there a better direction for
us to head in?

IIRC, part of the question was what license the "code" involved in the
website fell under. That is does the css and templates for the websites
also fall under the OPL?


-Toshio

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 05-23-2008, 02:09 AM
"Karsten 'quaid' Wade"
 
Default Fedora websites and licensing

On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 15:10 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >
> IIRC, part of the question was what license the "code" involved in the
> website fell under. That is does the css and templates for the websites
> also fall under the OPL?

Exactly the point of this thread. The *content* is under the OPL. The
markup around just the content is probably covered by that OPL. But the
rest of the site (CSS, Python, TurboGears, HTML, etc.) has not been
licensed. It is, however, a contribution, so is covered at a minimum by
the CLA.

Do we have the right to license all those contributions at this point?
That is, without the permission of the contributors?

- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 05-23-2008, 03:16 PM
"Paul W. Frields"
 
Default Fedora websites and licensing

On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 19:09 -0700, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 15:10 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > >
> > IIRC, part of the question was what license the "code" involved in the
> > website fell under. That is does the css and templates for the websites
> > also fall under the OPL?
>
> Exactly the point of this thread. The *content* is under the OPL. The
> markup around just the content is probably covered by that OPL. But the
> rest of the site (CSS, Python, TurboGears, HTML, etc.) has not been
> licensed. It is, however, a contribution, so is covered at a minimum by
> the CLA.
>
> Do we have the right to license all those contributions at this point?
> That is, without the permission of the contributors?

Before we worry about that question, do we still have access to all the
contributors in question, and can we get them to agree to an appropriate
license? The OPL may be poorly suited to code, but certainly we should
be able to get people to agree to something functional like the GPLv2+.

And this should serve as a reminder that when originating any sort of
code it's a good idea to declare a license for it! ;-)

--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 05-23-2008, 05:29 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Fedora websites and licensing

Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:

On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 15:10 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
IIRC, part of the question was what license the "code" involved in the
website fell under. That is does the css and templates for the websites
also fall under the OPL?


Exactly the point of this thread. The *content* is under the OPL. The
markup around just the content is probably covered by that OPL. But the
rest of the site (CSS, Python, TurboGears, HTML, etc.) has not been
licensed. It is, however, a contribution, so is covered at a minimum by
the CLA.

TurboGears apps are all licensed although not all of them have the
license information in all the source files:


Source Headers:
GPLv2:
FAS2
PackageDB
Bodhi
GPLv2+:
smolt: client

One License File for the Project:
MIT/X11:
Mirrormanager[1]_
GPL+:
smolt: smoon (server)[2]_
Transifex

[1]_: Helper script under GPLv2
[2]_: smolt client and server are hosted together in the same tarball
and repository so the fact that the client has a header explicitly
listing GPLv2+ might make the server GPLv2+ as well. The smolt authors
would probably be willing to clarify this in any case.


-Toshio

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 05-23-2008, 06:52 PM
"Karsten 'quaid' Wade"
 
Default Fedora websites and licensing

On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 10:29 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
> > On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 15:10 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >> IIRC, part of the question was what license the "code" involved in the
> >> website fell under. That is does the css and templates for the websites
> >> also fall under the OPL?
> >
> > Exactly the point of this thread. The *content* is under the OPL. The
> > markup around just the content is probably covered by that OPL. But the
> > rest of the site (CSS, Python, TurboGears, HTML, etc.) has not been
> > licensed. It is, however, a contribution, so is covered at a minimum by
> > the CLA.
> >
> TurboGears apps are all licensed although not all of them have the
> license information in all the source files:

Thankfully each of these projects did as Paul said, get the licensing
straight from the start.

Figuring this out is going to be a great geek research project:

* Sort through commits to /cvs/fedora and the new fedorahosted.org git
space to find out all committers

* Look through f-websites-l for precedent in terms of licensing; was
this ever discussed and settled?

While the original sites were all (C) Red Hat, Inc., this new stuff has
multiple copyright owners, and is much more pervasive than
fedora.redhat.com was.

Ultimately, we're protected by the CLA in terms of usage, but it makes
it hard to make our parts and pieces into an upstream others can consume
and contribute to. No matter the pain, it is probably worth it to do
the research and get agreements from all contributors.

- Karsten

> Source Headers:
> GPLv2:
> FAS2
> PackageDB
> Bodhi
> GPLv2+:
> smolt: client
>
> One License File for the Project:
> MIT/X11:
> Mirrormanager[1]_
> GPL+:
> smolt: smoon (server)[2]_
> Transifex
>
> [1]_: Helper script under GPLv2
> [2]_: smolt client and server are hosted together in the same tarball
> and repository so the fact that the client has a header explicitly
> listing GPLv2+ might make the server GPLv2+ as well. The smolt authors
> would probably be willing to clarify this in any case.
>
> -Toshio
>
> _______________________________________________
> fedora-advisory-board mailing list
> fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
--
Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 05-23-2008, 07:51 PM
Mike McGrath
 
Default Fedora websites and licensing

On Fri, 23 May 2008, Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 10:29 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > Karsten 'quaid' Wade wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 15:10 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > >> IIRC, part of the question was what license the "code" involved in the
> > >> website fell under. That is does the css and templates for the websites
> > >> also fall under the OPL?
> > >
> > > Exactly the point of this thread. The *content* is under the OPL. The
> > > markup around just the content is probably covered by that OPL. But the
> > > rest of the site (CSS, Python, TurboGears, HTML, etc.) has not been
> > > licensed. It is, however, a contribution, so is covered at a minimum by
> > > the CLA.
> > >
> > TurboGears apps are all licensed although not all of them have the
> > license information in all the source files:
>
> Thankfully each of these projects did as Paul said, get the licensing
> straight from the start.
>
> Figuring this out is going to be a great geek research project:
>
> * Sort through commits to /cvs/fedora and the new fedorahosted.org git
> space to find out all committers
>
> * Look through f-websites-l for precedent in terms of licensing; was
> this ever discussed and settled?
>
> While the original sites were all (C) Red Hat, Inc., this new stuff has
> multiple copyright owners, and is much more pervasive than
> fedora.redhat.com was.
>
> Ultimately, we're protected by the CLA in terms of usage, but it makes
> it hard to make our parts and pieces into an upstream others can consume
> and contribute to. No matter the pain, it is probably worth it to do
> the research and get agreements from all contributors.
>

Doesn't the CLA allow us to re-license contributions that came in from
start to finish by people who have signed the CLA?

-Mike

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 05-26-2008, 07:56 PM
"Karsten 'quaid' Wade"
 
Default Fedora websites and licensing

On Fri, 2008-05-23 at 14:51 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Doesn't the CLA allow us to re-license contributions that came in from
> start to finish by people who have signed the CLA?

I'm fairly certain only the copyright holder can license and re-license.
The CLA definitely does not assign copyright, only copyright license.
Now, the copyright license _could_ grant rights to re-license, but this
one doesn't AFAIK.

AFAICT, the CLA gives us the rights to continue using, modifying, and
distributing the various contributions to the Websites codebase. But if
we want to license it so it is clear for others down the road, we'll
likely need to approach all copyright holders to get permission. We had
to do that when we moved documentation to the OPL from the GNU FDL. We
had to drop parts of one (defunct) guide because the author did not
agree to the re-licensing.

- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:05 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org