-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 04:22:15PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 03:50:51PM -0400, 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). > > It can't be a (pure) drop-in replacement (you can't 'relicense' > existing CC BY SA 3.0 stuff) and the FPCA still makes CC BY SA 3.0 (+ > moral rights waiver etc.) the default content license. The latter is > possibly worth changing.
Hmm, I had forgotten that the FPCA specifies CC BY-SA 3.0. I wonder if it's worth the hassle up upgrading that to 4.0 and further wonder what happens when we get to the super great x.y version and want to change. > > I have personally concluded that the 4.0 licenses are at least > marginally better than the 3.0 Unported ones, FWIW. Marginally meaning we probably shouldn't worry with it for now? Thanks, Eric -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJTmh8SAAoJEB/kgVGp2CYvggsL/j6uR5XsKw5TN+zsDtHYcYQs 3H2R1cctxQGySQffMQGEf+WzSDyeMIe1+zlk0n4Ik3j2oGBX78YruwrT3RvEdEL1 Gv5+WOyDulzEqmoNOtLAfwkB5n0zLvjOn49xJMfCZWzoqmaSFWvCfQX01K2ldgm7 pHohXK5oHx0b3rsvTIVMsL1juOetJd14CmmmhcoN6kWL5fWqzUiCOS5WsPsDMJYn diPJ0jMCYWJwdycxvJJAJUAA4Z8Za3eNrMsdCjdq6GHbrUoDMXZ/6YxUcDG5F4J3 M8SYwKj8dwxSokFPb7VbWhun/4hMHr/0vsKF6jXJuJVB1emrYq8QyUoN9tHXtTAQ nMbUH5nkrGefSjS7zTN2dp3pDCbZvGJpSZtE/BNHgvXPLu0csnJQvucdpKmLiEM1 kdQS+uTIRcQ/7S3lb98Ou4xO3sV4G1PSZsSxv3x/jYbx6UQKyCAzjO7u37Ju+5U7 Y9Y5Rv4QvTEf+63rDxhHavF1Hvr5/qg5Msv48l2f4g== =Rxuh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
