On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Mark Hinkle <mark.hin...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 3/14/13 1:27 PM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > > >>On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Mark Hinkle <mark.hin...@citrix.com> >>wrote: >>> I bring this up because as I look at the wiki there is no copyright >>>notice nor does a search bring up a link to a copyright notice on the >>>wiki. Is the wiki content licensed under the Apache License 2.0 like the >>>manuals or does it fall under some other licensing? >>> >>> The reason I ask is that a number of us have participated in creating >>>a case studies of Apache CloudStack successes and the documents are done >>> and ready to publish. >>> >>> Ideally we would like to publish these docs (non-commercial purely >>>factual) on the >>>wiki(https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Home) but we >>>want to do this under the Creative Commons by SA 3.0 license >>>(attribution to point back to the CloudStack wiki) so that people can >>>use them and remix them to help promote ACS. I know the manuals are >>>licensed under the Apache License 2.0 but there is no copyright or >>>licensing information on the wiki that I can see. >>> >>> We suggest using the CCbySA license for these particular documents >>>since when the case studies are redistributed it's a well understood >>>documentation license and a checkbox license at places like ScribD etc. >>>Our goal would be to have people reblog them and distribute the news of >>>CloudStack success and not have to worry about copyright infringement >>>etc. >>> >>> >>> Thanks, Mark >> >> >>So we've discussed this more generally previously on this list and on >>legal-discuss. >> >>See the answer from Greg Stein here on legal-discuss: >>http://markmail.org/message/wswgys56yelbd44f >> >>And Brett Porter on cloudstack-dev >>http://markmail.org/message/nt6ouekqwvvthnfs >> >>--David > > Yes, the discussion did happen and Brett noted that anything developed > under an external source needed to retain that license. But it didn't > clarify if documentation developed under an external source and another > license could be posted to an Apache wiki if it wasn't in violation of the > license of the document. > > My suggestion is that the license for the wiki be spelled out *on the > wiki* so some poor sap who wanders onto the wiki and doesn't find the > conversation from August 9th, 2012 knows how they are allowed to use the > content posted there and how the content they post there will be licensed. > > In lieu of an answer on the case studies we'll just license under Apache > License 2.0Š > > > Mark > >
Yeah and I think that still stands. The author(s) can obviously define any license. However, if it is presented as a production of the project, I think the expectation is ASLv2 for licenses. I agree the content should be clearly licensed - I have access to the stylesheet that gets generated if you (or anyone else) wants to hack on it. --David
