#1249 Website footers don't specify the content is under the OPL, instead use a default copyright tag
Closed: Fixed 7 years ago Opened 15 years ago by quaid.

The wiki and other Fedora websites have misleading or missing copyright licensing information. We could potentially solve this by fixing the content on the [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal|Legal page]], which also doesn't mention the wiki or websites licensing:

The Wiki and the entire contents of fedoraproject.org are copyright (c) 2003 - 2009 Red Hat,
Inc. and others.

In general, the footers say:

Copyright © 2009 Red Hat, Inc. and others. All Rights Reserved. For comments or queries,
please contact us.

The Fedora Project is maintained and driven by the community and sponsored by Red Hat. This is
a community maintained site. Red Hat is not responsible for content.

* Sponsors
* Legal
* Trademark Guidelines

With Legal being a link to wiki/Legal:Main.

We may want to view this from a container point of view. E.g., "Unless otherwise specified in the body of the content, all content on this site is under the OPL." The reason is, we have images, sounds, videos, and presentations that are uploaded to the wiki as attachments. These are not all under the OPL; I tag all my presentations with CC BY SA, for example.

Similarly, the fedorahosted.org could have the same thing, so the project content is under it's own license, while the overall load of the Trac instance is under ... the GPL? Whatever.


Replying to [ticket:1249 quaid]:

The wiki and other Fedora websites have misleading or missing copyright licensing
information. We could potentially solve this by fixing the content on the
[[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal|Legal page]], which also doesn't mention the wiki or
websites licensing:

The link in the first paragraph above, it should look like this: [[http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal Legal page]]

OK, this is where we could link instead in the copyright section:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/Licenses#This_Website

(Thanks inode0.)

Sorry, I'm a bit confused in general. Could we possibly get a list of specifically which websites need to be changed and what their footers should be changed to?

The code for some of our web apps are also under different licenses (we have GPL and MIT at least) - does that make a difference as to what the footers should look like?

Replying to [comment:3 ricky]:

Sorry, I'm a bit confused in general. Could we possibly get a list of specifically which
websites need to be changed and what their footers should be changed to?

I made a list, based on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/DomainsList . It is probably not complete, but it seems to hit most of the stuff that has an actual footer:

http://quaid.fedorapeople.org/websites/domain_footers.txt

The code for some of our web apps are also under different licenses (we have GPL and MIT at
least) - does that make a difference as to what the footers should look like?

It could.

In fact, that is why I put Spot on the Cc:, because this really needs his opinion or perhaps a comment from the lawyers.

Well, honestly, I'm not sure that we should assume that the output of a web application is under the same license as the web application code itself, unless, that web app embeds its own code in the output somehow.

Note that the site default content license is changed from the OPL to the CC BY SA.

The websites footer discussion moved to the websites Trac:
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-websites/ticket/240

I agree with the request, we have time to times people asking for the license. We do free software, we should make it easier.

The wiki has currently:

  Copyright © 2016 Red Hat, Inc. and others. All Rights Reserved. For comments or queries, please contact us.

 The Fedora Project is maintained and driven by the community and sponsored by Red Hat. This is a community maintained site. Red Hat is not responsible for content.

  This page was last modified on 7 March 2016, at 19:57. Content is available under Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported unless otherwise noted.

Which I think answers the orig issue. Websites was dealt with in the above ticket.

I am going to close this now, if there's anything still to do, please re-open or file a new ticket.

Thanks. :bouquet:

@kevin changed the status to Closed

7 years ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata