On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 23:48, Dennis E. Hamilton > <dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: >> The extensive LibreOffice user-documentation project is producing >> GPL3[+]/CC-by3.0 dual-licensed documents. I assume that CC-by is not toxic >> for Apache, since it is the closest CC license to permissive (i.e., it is at >> least as permissive as modified BSD) and it allows derivative works, of >> course. > > We renamed the "Apache Software License, v1.1" to "Apache License, > v2.0" for the basic reason that we wanted to cover documentation, too. > AFAIK, all documentation coming out of the ASF is licensed under ALv2. > > Would we be okay with CC licenses? Unsure, to be honest. I think that > we certainly could be okay with it: certain forms of the CC license > palette match our permissive ideals, and they are also modern, > well-considered licenses. I'm not sure the question has come up, so we > have no policy that I'm aware of.
CC-by 2.5 is listed as acceptable: http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a I have no reason to believe that 3.0 would pose a problem. > Cheers, > -g - Sam Ruby --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
