www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Laforge <glafo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Groovy not allowed to include its "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" licensed documentation in the distribution? (was: Re: [Apache Creadur/RAT-206] Request to add support for Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike / what LICENSE snippet to scan for?)
Date Wed, 17 Jun 2015 08:23:09 GMT
Another question:

What is the process for asking people to relicense their contributions to
the documentation under ASL?
If I get an email from each of them saying they are okay with the
relicensing, is that okay?
(don't tell me they need to send me or scan me a real paper with a real
signature, etc)


2015-06-17 10:20 GMT+02:00 Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org>:

> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Guillaume Laforge <glaforge@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ...When you say "avoid including docs in the code release", you mean (and
> > confirm this would be compliant and enough for now) to not include the
> > *.adoc (asciidoctor documentation files licensed under CC-SA 3) in our
> > source package distribution?..
> Yes, that's the idea.
> > But we can still let those files stay in our source tree, correct?
> Sure, that's not a problem - it's common for incubating projects to
> sort those things out during incubation.
> -Bertrand

Guillaume Laforge
Groovy Project Manager
Product Ninja & Advocate at Restlet <http://restlet.com>

Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/
Social: @glaforge <http://twitter.com/glaforge> / Google+

View raw message