You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> on 2012/08/09 18:32:15 UTC
Documentation Licenses: CC-BY-SA 3.0?
This is what I sent to legal-discuss. I'll report back if I get any
response.
----- Forwarded message from Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> -----
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:00:08 +0000
From: Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>
To: Apache Legal <le...@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
Re: Response on CC-BY-SA (Was Re: Documentation Licenses: CC-BY-SA 3.0?)
Posted by Brett Porter <br...@apache.org>.
On 10/08/2012, at 4:25 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 02:04:41PM -0400, Eric Christensen wrote:
>> On 08/09/2012 01:00 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> Removing the word "software" does not make a good documentation
>> license. There are many portions of the license that do not apply to
>> documentation and adds some interesting aspects to using pieces and
>> parts of the documentation downstream.
Eric, do you have a specific example?
As was also pointed out on legal-discuss, we should compare to CC-BY, not CC-BY-SA, as it's closer in terms to the Apache License (though both can be incorporated into products here).
>
> It may not be an ideal documentation license, but it seems that is the
> license that is preferred by Apache for docs as well as code. You're
> free to raise that point on legal-discuss, too, of course.
>
> I'd like to wrap this up pretty quickly though, and we've gotten a
> pretty definite response on the matter.
You should feel free to move forward with using ALv2 for new documentation, as that's the current Apache policy. Just bear in mind anything that was contributed under CC-BY-SA and wasn't granted to the ASF, or was incorporated from an external source, needs to retain that license.
If there are issues it causes downstream we can raise a legal ticket for consideration separately.
Cheers,
Brett
--
Brett Porter
brett@apache.org
http://brettporter.wordpress.com/
http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter
http://twitter.com/brettporter
Re: Response on CC-BY-SA (Was Re: Documentation Licenses: CC-BY-SA
3.0?)
Posted by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>.
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 02:04:41PM -0400, Eric Christensen wrote:
> On 08/09/2012 01:00 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> > 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
>
> Removing the word "software" does not make a good documentation
> license. There are many portions of the license that do not apply to
> documentation and adds some interesting aspects to using pieces and
> parts of the documentation downstream.
It may not be an ideal documentation license, but it seems that is the
license that is preferred by Apache for docs as well as code. You're
free to raise that point on legal-discuss, too, of course.
I'd like to wrap this up pretty quickly though, and we've gotten a
pretty definite response on the matter.
Best,
Joe
--
Joe Brockmeier
http://dissociatedpress.net/
Twitter: @jzb
Re: Response on CC-BY-SA (Was Re: Documentation Licenses: CC-BY-SA
3.0?)
Posted by Eric Christensen <er...@christensenplace.us>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 08/09/2012 01:00 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> 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
Removing the word "software" does not make a good documentation
license. There are many portions of the license that do not apply to
documentation and adds some interesting aspects to using pieces and
parts of the documentation downstream.
- -Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=n85I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Response on CC-BY-SA (Was Re: Documentation Licenses: CC-BY-SA 3.0?)
Posted by Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>.
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 <jz...@zonker.net> -----
>
> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:00:08 +0000
> From: Joe Brockmeier <jz...@zonker.net>
> To: Apache Legal <le...@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