[openstack-dev] [tc] License for specs repo

Ben Swartzlander ben at swartzlander.org
Thu May 5 20:29:28 UTC 2016

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 this. It's helpful to know that there is official 
support from the board for using the CCBY license but it's unclear what 
that's supposed to look like, since I can't find a single project that's 
converted their whole specs repo to the new license.

My confusion comes from how to handle the existing Apache 2.0 stuff in 
the cookie cutter. I can't just drop the Apache 2.0 license... The only 
obvious path forward is to create a gross mess like the existing specs 
repos have where there's a mix of the 2 licenses and it's not clear 
which license applies to what.


> Thanks,
> Dims
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Ben Swartzlander <ben at swartzlander.org> wrote:
>> 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: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list