-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/09/2012 11:12 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 08:46:51PM -0400, Eric Christensen wrote: >> The defacto standard FLOSS license for documentation is the >> Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license[0] which has been specifically >> designed for documentation, both in source and final-form >> documents. Using this license will allow CloudStack to reuse >> other upstream works and easily allow reuse of CloudStack works. > > I think it might be overstating the case a wee bit to call CC-BY-SA > "the defacto standard FLOSS license for documentation" but the 3.0 > CC-BY-SA license seems to have passed muster for several projects. > (Notably, Fedora is using this as a default for docs, and Debian > has given 3.0 the thumbs up as DFSG compliant.)
And Red Hat and Wikipedia and OSM and... I forget the big differences between 2.5 and 3.0 but IIRC they fixed a lot of legal holes that caused problems in some European countries (although I'm not sure any license is going to be completely perfect in every country). > > It looks like many Apache projects are still using Apache as the > docs license, though. I haven't been able to find much discussion > of CC-BY-SA on Apache lists, and what I have found is mostly > related to older (2.5 and before). > > I'll ask on Apache legal-discuss what the current thinking is > about this. I would really like to get this wrapped up ASAP so we > can get the licensing complete and move on to more documentation... > Always good to ask a lawyer. :) > >> If the Apache license is required I'd ask about whether or not a >> CC-BY-SA can also be applied to the documentation for >> dual-licensing. > > That's a thought. Any objections to dual-licensing? > > Eric - if it's dual licensed, do we need to place a CC-BY-SA notice > in each file, or would we be able to place a top-level file in the > docs directory rather than having two per-file includes? I'd like > to avoid having more license text in the files than actual > documentation... AFAIK, there isn't a requirement to put license information in the source code as long as there is a license file that accompanies the source. That said, it's always a good idea to put the appropriate copyright and license information in the source. As someone that has had to audit code I can attest to my thankfulness of those that do. You wouldn't need to include the entire license in the source, just: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en_US - -Eric -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQI9dRAAoJEIB2q94CS7PRBqgQALRfdulFDvOKc17ne41Fnqng kpGEfp3ol2yiNI42H0HOrBLjul6ICYJJobXRbyQEQCK49iT6BAE7/wchNCwoUSDv ILuZw3IZELeexxSabS47cPQztHxuhuRiu2KcharUYrtt3cbyr+UOGnnjJDb9CMkN 6TDYXcstpBM/1dpb5jeV0OXnPjh5E5orV+4X2Wx3Sm6lYHlHC09fc6oojEAuPENl Yi9ylzSRukNafTdSyzAymgZRX7MOACMMfu1+zQTVQK/Up9kIlqTtuAkeV4JLDYBH 2ZuPD5iz+hn5lFpX++smcRfMPfO/1dpMnbDoimu56lnQm32OvQI6r8HsuJOXWgWX YY9HqB8zRq3yHuoifqVTIgtzkyzf+gy2AfgJoFBS3xQQ9i9Je5KteaqXfH6ob14v GAclmR6m5vnVKe9teCuARBAcgDv6n5UHV4MTU+AuqlpNLer0wl7Tjal8DoJKu1rg po9foqJw3LY6WjlVCEsXtoCuAmtgyRdN/zaL31+/3kA0eJwrUWJ80HVQMYi0ABNt v57NUDqQJ9h0ctMhhazSDVa7Sh8L1eQIZBfJPQ5xR8BfeY9q9Wjap9HxpzY2JrY5 axDLLkIDWnefegrmeYAiXNils6vVVnNrIcdjigGc2Y+q9wmI1WdejptalZ3jMu/w KiR5bboPRNm+SogA+WI4 =1f9L -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
