On Mar 14, 2013, at 2:34 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote: > 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
Does it also apply to a pdf that we attach to the wiki page ?
