Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 19:55:55 +0100
From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>
To: Joe Brockmeier <jzb@zonker.net>
Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: Documentation Licenses: CC-BY-SA 3.0?
Message-ID: <20120809185555.GA3236@tarsus.local2>
References: <20120809160008.GA24926@kodos>
 <CABD8fLVx4rgsabERbeVa_DHqk6=CJwC03mzzds7TQDO+eBQ0oQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120809170953.GA25364@kodos>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120809170953.GA25364@kodos>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

Joe Brockmeier wrote on Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 17:09:53 +0000:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 12:25:15PM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Thanks much for the speedy response!
> 

What Greg said.  But for completeness, note the ALv2 is closer to CC-BY
than to CC-BY-SA.

> > 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
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org