cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sebastien Goasguen <>
Subject Re: Wiki Content Licensing
Date Fri, 15 Mar 2013 08:53:31 GMT

On Mar 14, 2013, at 2:34 PM, David Nalley <> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Mark Hinkle <> wrote:
>> On 3/14/13 1:27 PM, "David Nalley" <> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Mark Hinkle <>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I bring this up because as I look at the wiki there is no copyright
>>>> notice nor does a search bring up a link to a copyright notice on the
>>>> wiki. Is the wiki content licensed under the Apache License 2.0 like the
>>>> manuals or does it fall under some other licensing?
>>>> The reason I ask  is that a number of us have participated in creating
>>>> a case studies of Apache CloudStack successes and the documents are done
>>>> and ready to publish.
>>>> Ideally we would like to publish these docs (non-commercial purely
>>>> factual) on the
>>>> wiki( but we
>>>> want to do this under the Creative Commons by SA 3.0  license
>>>> (attribution to point back to the CloudStack wiki)  so that people can
>>>> use them and remix them to help promote ACS. I know the manuals are
>>>> licensed under the Apache License 2.0 but there is no copyright or
>>>> licensing information on the wiki that I can see.
>>>> We suggest using the CCbySA license for these particular documents
>>>> since when the case studies are redistributed it's a well understood
>>>> documentation license and a checkbox license at places like ScribD etc.
>>>> Our goal would be to have people reblog them and distribute the news of
>>>> CloudStack success and not have to worry about copyright infringement
>>>> etc.
>>>> Thanks, Mark
>>> So we've discussed this more generally previously on this list and on
>>> legal-discuss.
>>> See the answer from Greg Stein here on legal-discuss:
>>> And Brett Porter on cloudstack-dev
>>> --David
>> Yes, the discussion did happen and Brett noted that anything developed
>> under an external source needed to retain that license. But it didn't
>> clarify if documentation developed under an external source and another
>> license could be posted to an Apache wiki if it wasn't in violation of the
>> license of the document.
>> My suggestion is that the license for the wiki be spelled out *on the
>> wiki* so some poor sap who wanders onto the wiki and doesn't find the
>> conversation from August 9th, 2012 knows how they are allowed to use the
>> content posted there and how the content they post there will be licensed.
>> In lieu of an answer on the case studies we'll just license under Apache
>> License 2.0Š
>> Mark
> Yeah and I think that still stands. The author(s) can obviously define
> any license. However, if it is presented as a production of the
> project, I think the expectation is ASLv2 for licenses.
> I agree the content should be clearly licensed - I have access to the
> stylesheet that gets generated if you (or anyone else) wants to hack
> on it.
> --David

Does it also apply to a pdf that we attach to the wiki page ?

View raw message