Ben Swartzlander wrote:
On 05/05/2016 04:01 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Ben,
Have you seen this yet?
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/2014-March/000201.html
On 05/05/2016 04:01 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Ben,
Have you seen this yet?
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/2014-March/000201.html
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMinutes#Approval_of_the_CCBY_License_for_Documentation.
No I hadn't seen
Ben,
Have you seen this yet?
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/2014-March/000201.html
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMinutes#Approval_of_the_CCBY_License_for_Documentation.
Thanks,
Dims
On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Ben Swartzlander
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
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
On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 12:03:38PM -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.
>
> The official cookie-cutter for creating new specs repos [1] appears to also
>
