-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
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
sparks@redhat.com - sparks@fedoraproject.org 097C 82C3 52DF C64A 50C2 E3A3 8076 ABDE 024B B3D1 - --------------------------------------------------
------------------------------ 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
sparks@redhat.com - sparks@fedoraproject.org 097C 82C3 52DF C64A 50C2 E3A3 8076 ABDE 024B B3D1
legal mailing list legal@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 04:03:25PM -0400, Adam Saunders wrote:
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?
I'd be interested in your analysis if only for personal use/understanding. I'd ask my wife (she is a lawyer) but she'd probably charge me and I'm assuming this would take more than one 6-minute billing period. :)
Thanks, Eric
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 03:50:51PM -0400, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
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.
I have personally concluded that the 4.0 licenses are at least marginally better than the 3.0 Unported ones, FWIW.
- RF
-----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
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 05:43:48PM -0400, Eric H. Christensen wrote:
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?
It's certainly not something to worry *about*. It seems okay to me for documentation authors to begin explicitly using an acceptable 4.0 CC license if that's what they want to do. However if such documentation uses pre-existing 3.0 material, it must comply with the latter license.
The 4.0 licenses fix the moral rights bug in the 3.0 Unported series, which would allow elimination of the famous passive-aggressive waiver sentence. :)
------------------------------ 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. -----------------------------
Attached please find a PDF of my analysis, and its "source form" LYX document. My analysis is dedicated to the public domain under Creative Commons Zero.
Thanks, Adam Saunders
-
Adam Saunders -
Eric Christensen -
Richard Fontana