www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Documentation Licenses: CC-BY-SA 3.0?
Date Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:25:15 GMT
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
On Aug 9, 2012 12:00 PM, "Joe Brockmeier" <jzb@zonker.net> wrote:

> 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
>
>

Mime
View raw message