I believe that is correct. I have seen Jean Hollis Weber mention CC-BY-SA, but I recall only seeing CC-BY (with GPL as dual license). That is continuing with the LibreOffice editions, which are under GPL 3+ and CC-BY 3+.
There is an odd trip-wire in CC-BY that has been there since CC-BY 2.0, having to do with a requirement on delivery by means having DRM constraints, but that has not impeded viewing CC-BY as Category A. In any case those are all third-party works and we get to deal with them accordingly. - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Frank Peters [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 09:01 To: [email protected] Cc: Rob Weir Subject: Re: An example of the license problems we're going to face [...] > With Apache, our releases are under the Apache 2.0 license. This is > not a copyleft license. Apache code can be modified and republished > without making the changes also available under an open source > license. > > The Oracle SGA puts the Apache 2.0 license on the files from OOo that > Sun/Oracle had rights to under the various forms of their contributor > agreements. This predominantly covered source code. But it did not > cover project documentation. Documentation was generally under the > copyleft Public Documentation License (PDL) or CC BY-A. IIRC CC licensed docs are under CC-BY, not CC-BY-SA, hence not copylefted, see http://ooo-wiki.apache.org/wiki/Category:CC-BY_License > This is going to cause us problems. A specific example. The main > build instructions for OpenOffice.org are in a PDL-licensed Building > Guide document [1]. This means that our own source code releases are > unable to be accompanied by instructions on how to build the product. > This is quite odd, compared to most other projects, say SVN, which > include build instructions with their source releases [2]. We could just rewrite the building guide and put it under AL. [...] > As I've said before, we can't change the past. But we can prevent > repeating past mistakes. We need to ensure that in the future that In the past, this was no mistake but a prerequisite for docs. > the core project documentation is developed and maintained under the > ALv2 license. I thought this was a given anyway? As to user docs produced by the ODFAuthors we need to ask them to dual-license as they did for OOo, but I am not sure if their current practice to publish under CC-BY would be sufficient anyway (see above). Frank
