One more thing I forgot to mention: I incorporated a lot of feedback into the slides I received from the comdev list. I included some names in acknowledgment, but not all of them. Should that be fine too?
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 12:05 Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy <[email protected]> wrote: > Those are great questions Justin, my answers are in line: > > - Is google docs the right format? > > I used google docs because personally for me it is easy to work with. But > I can change the format to anything the community agrees on. > > - Who created the content? Did all give permission for this to be licensed >> under it’s license? > > I created the content based on the information provided in various parts > of apache.org and gave the references where appropriate. Is there > anything i need to do? > > - Some potential IP/license issues. Where did the following come from and >> how are they licensed? >> - The content itself (seems to be CC-BY) >> > I really wasn't sure which license to use, as I thought Apache and MIT > licenses refer mostly to the code. (eg, it has patent grant, and that is > not really applicable to the slide?). Also i looked to other slides in > apache.org to see how they are licensed but i couldn't find relevant > information. > > >> - Slide theme >> > Diagrams used were designed from scratch by Amardip Raol and I have his > permission to use. The theme I believe is good too. > >> - Icons used in the slides >> > I have originally used couple from flaticon, but changed them to google > material design icons <https://github.com/google/material-design-icons> that > have Apache license. Should that be good? > >> - Do you have any recordings of the slides being presented? >> > No > >> >> It’s seem to be currently licensed under: >> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ >> >> Which probably means we cannot us it [1] unless it was re-licensed, even >> if it changed to CC-SA there are issues [2]. >> > I am happy to relicense it. I used CC-BY because I believed it was the > most permissive out of all CC licenses, and I wasn't sure whether Apache > license was appropriate for this kind of content. > >> >> I’m more thinking out-loud here and perhaps some of the above could >> become a check list for incoming content? >> > +1. Also +1 on Mirko's points, especially on: > - provide a list of compatible licenses > - describe the "process of relicensing" > - describe a "cleanup process" to reduce "incompatible content" > > Thanks, > Aizhamal > > > -- *Aizhamal Nurmamat kyzy* Open Source Program Manager 646-355-9740 Mobile 601 North 34th Street, Seattle, WA 98103
