incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Brockmeier <...@zonker.net>
Subject Re: Please discuss: License to use for documentation
Date Wed, 08 Aug 2012 23:30:03 GMT
Apologies, my first reply only went to Jessica, apparently. 

On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 02:50:46PM -0700, Jessica Tomechak wrote:
> Hello all,
> We had earlier proposed using the cc-by-sa license for documentation, for a
> variety of good reasons, and I believed this was approved by our mentors and/or
> legal. Recently, Joe B. did some work in the doc files and has inserted the
> Apache 2.0 license. It also looks like we have changed it in the
> publican-cloudstack brand files (see Legal_Notice.xml).

The CC-BY-SA discussion must have happened before I started doing work
with CloudStack, and my understanding is that we wanted to license
everything as Apache. That's how the initial contribution (David's
Runbook) was also licensed. 

> Is there any reason why we can not use cc-by-sa legally? It will allow us to do
> good stuff like pull in content from outside contributors, blogs, Wikipedia,
> any cc-licensed content we can find. If we need to take the docs into their own
> non-Apache repo to do this, it's worth considering.

Here's what Apache's resolved questions page has to say about
CC-BY-SA[1]:

"Unmodified media under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5
and Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 licenses may be
included in Apache products, subject to the licenses attribution clauses
which may require LICENSE/NOTICE/README changes. For any other type of
CC-SA licensed work, please contact the Legal PMC."

So - it looks like CC-BY-SA is OK, but the inclusion of "unmodified
media" concerns me a bit. Specifically - does that mean we can only drop
in whole works that are CC-licensed? If so, the value of the work is
small if we can't edit it and such to include within our guides. 

It also might cause problems if we ever want to re-use our docs as
inline documentation within the UI. Might be nice at some point, for
instance, to have context help available directly in the UI. 

Given that we have contributors like Wido who are also code
contributors, a non-Apache repo is not recommended. I won't say it would
double the effort required to contribute, but it certainly would
increase the amount of effort required. 

Did you have specific content in mind that we should pull in? I think if
folks are blogging or producing docs as CC-BY-SA they'd be open to
re-licensing under Apache if we ask nicely. Not sure Wikipedia content
is worth having a different license for docs on its own...

[1]http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#cc-sa
-- 
Joe Brockmeier
http://dissociatedpress.net/
Twitter: @jzb

Mime
View raw message