Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] License for specs repo
Ben Swartzlander wrote: On 05/05/2016 04:01 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Ben, Have you seen this yet? http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/2014-March/000201.html https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMinutes#Approval_of_the_CCBY_License_for_Documentation. No I hadn't seen this. It's helpful to know that there is official support from the board for using the CCBY license but it's unclear what that's supposed to look like, since I can't find a single project that's converted their whole specs repo to the new license. My confusion comes from how to handle the existing Apache 2.0 stuff in the cookie cutter. I can't just drop the Apache 2.0 license... The only obvious path forward is to create a gross mess like the existing specs repos have where there's a mix of the 2 licenses and it's not clear which license applies to what. Looks like a question/discussion for the legal-discuss ML. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] License for specs repo
On 05/05/2016 04:01 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Ben, Have you seen this yet? http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/2014-March/000201.html https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMinutes#Approval_of_the_CCBY_License_for_Documentation. No I hadn't seen this. It's helpful to know that there is official support from the board for using the CCBY license but it's unclear what that's supposed to look like, since I can't find a single project that's converted their whole specs repo to the new license. My confusion comes from how to handle the existing Apache 2.0 stuff in the cookie cutter. I can't just drop the Apache 2.0 license... The only obvious path forward is to create a gross mess like the existing specs repos have where there's a mix of the 2 licenses and it's not clear which license applies to what. -Ben Thanks, Dims On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: On 05/05/2016 03:24 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-05-05 12:03:38 -0400 (-0400), Ben Swartzlander wrote: It appears that many of the existing specs repos contain a confusing mixture of Apache 2.0 licensed code and Creative Commons licensed docs. [...] Recollection is that the prose was intended to be under CC Attrib. in line with official documentation, while any sample source code was intended to be under ASL2 so that it could be directly used in similarly-licensed software. We likely do a terrible job of explaining that though, and maybe dual-licensing everything in specs repos makes more sense? This might also be a better thread to have on the legal-discuss@ ML. We may ultimately need to consult legal experts, but I was hoping that we already had a clear guideline for specs licensing and it was merely being applied inconsistently. I figured the TC would know if a decision had been made about this. I also have a feeling that dual-licensing would be the least-likely-to-fail option, however I haven't seen examples of how to properly dual-license a repo in OpenStack so I wasn't going to jump to that option first. -Ben Swartzlander __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] License for specs repo
Ben, Have you seen this yet? http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/2014-March/000201.html https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMinutes#Approval_of_the_CCBY_License_for_Documentation. Thanks, Dims On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: > On 05/05/2016 03:24 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: >> >> On 2016-05-05 12:03:38 -0400 (-0400), Ben Swartzlander wrote: >>> >>> It appears that many of the existing specs repos contain a >>> confusing mixture of Apache 2.0 licensed code and Creative Commons >>> licensed docs. >> >> [...] >> >> Recollection is that the prose was intended to be under CC Attrib. >> in line with official documentation, while any sample source code >> was intended to be under ASL2 so that it could be directly used in >> similarly-licensed software. We likely do a terrible job of >> explaining that though, and maybe dual-licensing everything in specs >> repos makes more sense? This might also be a better thread to have >> on the legal-discuss@ ML. > > > We may ultimately need to consult legal experts, but I was hoping that we > already had a clear guideline for specs licensing and it was merely being > applied inconsistently. I figured the TC would know if a decision had been > made about this. > > I also have a feeling that dual-licensing would be the least-likely-to-fail > option, however I haven't seen examples of how to properly dual-license a > repo in OpenStack so I wasn't going to jump to that option first. > > -Ben Swartzlander > > > __ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] License for specs repo
On 05/05/2016 03:24 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: On 2016-05-05 12:03:38 -0400 (-0400), Ben Swartzlander wrote: It appears that many of the existing specs repos contain a confusing mixture of Apache 2.0 licensed code and Creative Commons licensed docs. [...] Recollection is that the prose was intended to be under CC Attrib. in line with official documentation, while any sample source code was intended to be under ASL2 so that it could be directly used in similarly-licensed software. We likely do a terrible job of explaining that though, and maybe dual-licensing everything in specs repos makes more sense? This might also be a better thread to have on the legal-discuss@ ML. We may ultimately need to consult legal experts, but I was hoping that we already had a clear guideline for specs licensing and it was merely being applied inconsistently. I figured the TC would know if a decision had been made about this. I also have a feeling that dual-licensing would be the least-likely-to-fail option, however I haven't seen examples of how to properly dual-license a repo in OpenStack so I wasn't going to jump to that option first. -Ben Swartzlander __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] License for specs repo
On 2016-05-05 12:03:38 -0400 (-0400), Ben Swartzlander wrote: > It appears that many of the existing specs repos contain a > confusing mixture of Apache 2.0 licensed code and Creative Commons > licensed docs. [...] Recollection is that the prose was intended to be under CC Attrib. in line with official documentation, while any sample source code was intended to be under ASL2 so that it could be directly used in similarly-licensed software. We likely do a terrible job of explaining that though, and maybe dual-licensing everything in specs repos makes more sense? This might also be a better thread to have on the legal-discuss@ ML. -- Jeremy Stanley __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] License for specs repo
On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 12:03:38PM -0400, Ben Swartzlander wrote: > It appears that many of the existing specs repos contain a confusing mixture > of Apache 2.0 licensed code and Creative Commons licensed docs. > > The official cookie-cutter for creating new specs repos [1] appears to also > contain a mixture of the two licenses, although it's even more confusing > because it seems an attempt was made to change the license from Apache to > Creative Commons [2] yet there are still several [3] places [4] where Apache > is clearly specified. > > I personally have no opinion on what license should be used, but I'd like to > clearly specify the license for the newly-created manila-specs repo, and I'm > happy with whatever the TC is currently recommending. Content in the specs is often used as the basis for writing official documentation later, so license compatibility with docs is an important consideration. IIUC the official OpenStack manuals are Apache licensed, while other open source 3rd party docs are often CC licensed. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [tc] License for specs repo
It appears that many of the existing specs repos contain a confusing mixture of Apache 2.0 licensed code and Creative Commons licensed docs. The official cookie-cutter for creating new specs repos [1] appears to also contain a mixture of the two licenses, although it's even more confusing because it seems an attempt was made to change the license from Apache to Creative Commons [2] yet there are still several [3] places [4] where Apache is clearly specified. I personally have no opinion on what license should be used, but I'd like to clearly specify the license for the newly-created manila-specs repo, and I'm happy with whatever the TC is currently recommending. -Ben Swartzlander [1] https://github.com/openstack-dev/specs-cookiecutter [2] https://github.com/openstack-dev/specs-cookiecutter/commit/8738f58981da3ad9c0f27fb545d61747213482a4#diff-053c5863d526dd5103cd9b0069074596 [3] https://github.com/openstack-dev/specs-cookiecutter/blob/master/%7B%7Bcookiecutter.repo_name%7D%7D/setup.cfg#L12 [4] https://github.com/openstack-dev/specs-cookiecutter/blob/master/README.rst __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
