Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of sa3ruby@gmail.com designates
 209.85.220.175 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=CoYb5AdWSc4zpC2MfBvzfwqs0gZYKEehYrhTv4WR26Tnt1BAC8TAP2sKFP9xUXGr+H
         Jae4LiCRUBEKZD7gR1FlcmiqkT5n/s8eJ1XQer+c8j1giTUx/LSOped/L7OlJeolp0ib
         wz7krPv+ITPk/eTPu9iXpJa4G2gNrzzj6nNHk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: sa3ruby@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinQxJUpPLxAfZdPbW7=0bsh1zWnJA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4DE65D8F.8060002@oracle.com>
	<4DE66703.4000007@apache.org>
	<OF6666EFBA.245716FC-ON852578A2.005B05CF-852578A2.006515B0@lotus.com>
	<4DE70241.4090705@rowe-clan.net>
	<BANLkTi=QTkWgJcXwaALaKXiNMLmmMSUMCQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4DE7B80D.40807@rowe-clan.net>
	<20110603223738.85540@gmx.net>
	<011f01cc226a$48958ce0$d9c0a6a0$@acm.org>
	<BANLkTinQxJUpPLxAfZdPbW7=0bsh1zWnJA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 07:23:17 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=bjR45Vy7aj44GggR_p2YdUayzLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Licensing Q's [was: Incubator Proposal]
From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 23:48, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
>> The extensive LibreOffice user-documentation project is producing GPL3[+=
]/CC-by3.0 dual-licensed documents. =C2=A0I assume that CC-by is not toxic =
for Apache, since it is the closest CC license to permissive (i.e., it is a=
t least as permissive as modified BSD) and it allows derivative works, of c=
ourse.
>
> We renamed the "Apache Software License, v1.1" to "Apache License,
> v2.0" for the basic reason that we wanted to cover documentation, too.
> AFAIK, all documentation coming out of the ASF is licensed under ALv2.
>
> Would we be okay with CC licenses? Unsure, to be honest. I think that
> we certainly could be okay with it: certain forms of the CC license
> palette match our permissive ideals, and they are also modern,
> well-considered licenses. I'm not sure the question has come up, so we
> have no policy that I'm aware of.

CC-by 2.5 is listed as acceptable:

http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a

I have no reason to believe that 3.0 would pose a problem.

> Cheers,
> -g

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org