cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric Christensen <e...@christensenplace.us>
Subject Re: Please discuss: License to use for documentation
Date Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:29:21 GMT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 08/09/2012 11:12 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 08:46:51PM -0400, Eric Christensen wrote:
>> The defacto standard FLOSS license for documentation is the
>> Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license[0] which has been specifically
>> designed for documentation, both in source and final-form
>> documents.  Using this license will allow CloudStack to reuse
>> other upstream works and easily allow reuse of CloudStack works.
> 
> I think it might be overstating the case a wee bit to call CC-BY-SA
> "the defacto standard FLOSS license for documentation" but the 3.0
> CC-BY-SA license seems to have passed muster for several projects.
> (Notably, Fedora is using this as a default for docs, and Debian
> has given 3.0 the thumbs up as DFSG compliant.)

And Red Hat and Wikipedia and OSM and...

I forget the big differences between 2.5 and 3.0 but IIRC they fixed a
lot of legal holes that caused problems in some European countries
(although I'm not sure any license is going to be completely perfect
in every country).

> 
> It looks like many Apache projects are still using Apache as the
> docs license, though. I haven't been able to find much discussion
> of CC-BY-SA on Apache lists, and what I have found is mostly
> related to older (2.5 and before).
> 
> I'll ask on Apache legal-discuss what the current thinking is
> about this. I would really like to get this wrapped up ASAP so we
> can get the licensing complete and move on to more documentation...
> 
Always good to ask a lawyer. :)
> 
>> If the Apache license is required I'd ask about whether or not a 
>> CC-BY-SA can also be applied to the documentation for
>> dual-licensing.
> 
> That's a thought. Any objections to dual-licensing?
> 
> Eric - if it's dual licensed, do we need to place a CC-BY-SA notice
> in each file, or would we be able to place a top-level file in the
> docs directory rather than having two per-file includes? I'd like
> to avoid having more license text in the files than actual
> documentation...

AFAIK, there isn't a requirement to put license information in the
source code as long as there is a license file that accompanies the
source.  That said, it's always a good idea to put the appropriate
copyright and license information in the source.  As someone that has
had to audit code I can attest to my thankfulness of those that do.

You wouldn't need to include the entire license in the source, just:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
3.0 Unported License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en_US

- -Eric

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=1f9L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mime
View raw message