On 10/08/2012, at 4:25 AM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 02:04:41PM -0400, Eric Christensen wrote: >> On 08/09/2012 01:00 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: >>> I'm pleased to say that I received a rapid response on >>> legal-discuss from Greg Stein: >>> >>> "The ASL 1.1 license became the AL 2.0 license by dropping the >>> "Software" term. The ALv2 is applicable to documentation. Please >>> use that for all doc. >>> >>> Cheers, -g" >>> >>> See: http://markmail.org/message/wswgys56yelbd44f >> >> Removing the word "software" does not make a good documentation >> license. There are many portions of the license that do not apply to >> documentation and adds some interesting aspects to using pieces and >> parts of the documentation downstream.
Eric, do you have a specific example? As was also pointed out on legal-discuss, we should compare to CC-BY, not CC-BY-SA, as it's closer in terms to the Apache License (though both can be incorporated into products here). > > It may not be an ideal documentation license, but it seems that is the > license that is preferred by Apache for docs as well as code. You're > free to raise that point on legal-discuss, too, of course. > > I'd like to wrap this up pretty quickly though, and we've gotten a > pretty definite response on the matter. You should feel free to move forward with using ALv2 for new documentation, as that's the current Apache policy. Just bear in mind anything that was contributed under CC-BY-SA and wasn't granted to the ASF, or was incorporated from an external source, needs to retain that license. If there are issues it causes downstream we can raise a legal ticket for consideration separately. Cheers, Brett -- Brett Porter br...@apache.org http://brettporter.wordpress.com/ http://au.linkedin.com/in/brettporter http://twitter.com/brettporter
