cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Hinkle <Mark.Hin...@citrix.com>
Subject Re: Wiki Content Licensing
Date Thu, 14 Mar 2013 17:48:52 GMT
On 3/14/13 1:27 PM, "David Nalley" <david@gnsa.us> wrote:


>On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Mark Hinkle <Mark.Hinkle@citrix.com>
>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(https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Home) 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:
>http://markmail.org/message/wswgys56yelbd44f
>
>And Brett Porter on cloudstack-dev
>http://markmail.org/message/nt6ouekqwvvthnfs
>
>--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



Mime
View raw message