On 05/05/2016 03:24 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2016-05-05 12:03:38 -0400 (-0400), Ben Swartzlander wrote:
It appears that many of the existing specs repos contain a
confusing mixture of Apache 2.0 licensed code and Creative Commons
licensed docs.
[...]
Recollection is that the prose was intended to be under CC Attrib.
in line with official documentation, while any sample source code
was intended to be under ASL2 so that it could be directly used in
similarly-licensed software. We likely do a terrible job of
explaining that though, and maybe dual-licensing everything in specs
repos makes more sense? This might also be a better thread to have
on the legal-discuss@ ML.
We may ultimately need to consult legal experts, but I was hoping that
we already had a clear guideline for specs licensing and it was merely
being applied inconsistently. I figured the TC would know if a decision
had been made about this.
I also have a feeling that dual-licensing would be the
least-likely-to-fail option, however I haven't seen examples of how to
properly dual-license a repo in OpenStack so I wasn't going to jump to
that option first.
-Ben Swartzlander
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
