On 17/09/2012 Rob Weir wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a says
---
For the purposes of being a dependency to an Apache product, which licenses
are considered to be similar in terms to the Apache License 2.0?
Works under the following licenses may be included within Apache products:
...
Creative Commons Attribution (CC-A)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/
---
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-96
See also the related discussion on the legal-discuss.
The conclusion was that CC-BY-3.0 had an anti-DRM clause that
prevented it from being considered fully category-a.
OK, but that clause exists in the (approved) 2.5 version too:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode (4a)
So, if it was not an obstacle when approving version 2.5, it shouldn't
be an obstacle for 3.0 either (assuming it was not overlooked of course).
Pointing users
to large files of any kind on the website will be a problem.
Yes, but these files are not so large (Italian version: 200-1500 KBytes
per chapter) to pose problems.
My guess is we would have a lot less trouble if we either started new
doc from scratch under ALv2, or did this work via ODFA, e..g, outside
of Apache. Mixing the two will be a headache.
I agree. The ODFAuthors material is a solid basis to build upon, so, if
we decide that in the end the licensing issues are not so relevant, we
could redirect volunteers there and link the guides from our website (as
it has been the case for years, actually). They already offer drafts for
Apache OpenOffice and have a solid infrastructure and good quality.
Regards,
Andrea.
