------------------------------ DISCLAIMER: This email does not contain legal advice. This email also does not establish a solicitor-client relationship. You should neither take nor fail to take any action based on any information in this email. If you have a legal issue, then retain legal counsel. -----------------------------
Hi Sparks,While I'm not a Red Hat lawyer (I'm a Canadian articling student apprenticing to be a lawyer, with an expected call to the bar this September), I'd be happy to do a thorough comparison and post it to the list by 1 pm Raleigh time tomorrow. I'll definitely be sure to touch on the issue about "moral rights". Sounds good?
Thanks, Adam Saunders On 06/12/2014 03:50 PM, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
Creative Commons is pushing the use of their 4.0 license (which I have no qualms with). Has/can legal review this new license[0] as a drop-in replacement for the 3.0 license[1] we are currently using for Fedora Documentation (with the waiving the rights to enforce Section 4d)? I'm unsure of any benefits or regressions we would have (I haven't personally compared the two and IANAL). Thanks. [0] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode [1] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode -- Eric -------------------------------------------------- Eric "Sparks" Christensen [email protected] - [email protected] 097C 82C3 52DF C64A 50C2 E3A3 8076 ABDE 024B B3D1 -------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
