incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Brockmeier <...@zonker.net>
Subject Response on CC-BY-SA (Was Re: Documentation Licenses: CC-BY-SA 3.0?)
Date Thu, 09 Aug 2012 17:00:31 GMT
I'm pleased to say that I received a rapid response on legal-discuss
from Greg Stein:

"The ASL 1.1 license became the AL 2.0 license by dropping the
"Software" term. The ALv2 is applicable to documentation. Please use
that for all doc.

Cheers,
-g"

See: http://markmail.org/message/wswgys56yelbd44f

Best, 

Joe

On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 04:32:15PM +0000, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> This is what I sent to legal-discuss. I'll report back if I get any
> response.
> 
> ----- Forwarded message from Joe Brockmeier <jzb@zonker.net> -----
> 
> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:00:08 +0000
> From: Joe Brockmeier <jzb@zonker.net>
> To: Apache Legal <legal-discuss@apache.org>
> Subject: Documentation Licenses: CC-BY-SA 3.0?
> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
> 
> The CloudStack (incubating) project is in the process of putting its
> documentation in shape, and we're wondering about the possibility of
> using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) 3.0. 
> 
> I see that Apache projects may include CC-BY-SA works[0], but the page
> specifically calls out "unmodified media," which suggests that the idea
> is that a project may include CC-BY-SA works from other sources, but it
> doesn't look like CC-BY-SA would be a recommended license for material
> created within the project. (Or perhaps I'm over-thinking that.)
> 
> Looking through the legal-discuss list I've found very little discussion
> of CC-BY-SA at all, and most about prior versions of the license. 
> 
> Can anyone give me an opinion on whether CC-BY-SA 3.0 would be an
> acceptable license for our documentation going forward. (Either alone,
> or perhaps dual-licensed.) The CC-BY-SA 3.0 license does seem to have
> passed muster with a number of other open source projects. (Fedora has
> adopted it, and it seems to be a DFSG-approved license, whereas 2.5 was
> not.)
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Joe
> 
> [0]: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#cc-sa
> -- 
> Joe Brockmeier
> http://dissociatedpress.net/
> Twitter: @jzb
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> 
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> 
> -- 
> Joe Brockmeier
> http://dissociatedpress.net/
> Twitter: @jzb

-- 
Joe Brockmeier
http://dissociatedpress.net/
Twitter: @jzb

Mime
View raw message