Adding back legal-discuss as while there were some tangential issues around infra being discussed I believe my core question/concern is most definitely a legal one.

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Gordon" <sgordon@redhat.com>
> To: "Anne Gentle" <annegentle@gmail.com>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Anne Gentle" <annegentle@gmail.com>
> > To: openstack-docs@lists.openstack.org
> >
> > >
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 08:36:07 +0100
> > > From: Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.com>
> > > To: Stefano Maffulli <stefano@openstack.org>,
> > >         openstack-docs@lists.openstack.org
> > > Subject: Re: [OpenStack-docs] Licensing of documentation
> > > Message-ID: <55092AE7.6040207@suse.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> > >
> > > On 03/17/2015 07:12 PM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> > > > The conversation has definitely drifted off-topic now :) but I think
> > > > it's worth responding here (and eventually move to infra, where it
> > > > should continue)
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 15:57 +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> > > >> Once we can safely migrate review.openstack.org to
> > > >> authenticate against the same openstackid.org identity provider as
> > > >> www.openstack.org uses, this should become much simpler again since
> > > >> we'll have a way to force contributors to sign up for a foundation
> > > >> account (though they'll no longer need to fill out the foundation
> > > >> membership form when doing so).
> > > >
> > > > Indeed, stop using Launchpad and use openstackid.org globally is the
> > > > last step we need to accomplish before we can decouple individual
> > > > memberships from commit rights. I think we already have all the basic
> > > > tools in place to build the list of voters, we need to start thinking
> > > > about moving gerrit to use openstackid.org.
> > > >
> > > > Now, to go back to licensing docs:
> > > >
> > > > what's the status of licensing for the OpenStack upstream
> > > > documentation?
> > > >
> > > > (I can wait for Anne to come back from holiday if she's the only one
> > > > who
> > > > can answer this question).
> > >
> > > **************************
> > >
> >
> > Sigh, that's not good. I don't want to be the only one who knows this. :)
> >
> > Technically the docs are still Apache 2.0 because there is no indicator to
> > a docs contributor that it would be licensed any other way. (To me, this is
> > why we either change the current design or get the transfer underway.)
>
> What indicator does a contributor get that their contributions are licensed
> under Apache 2.0 today? Are we just talking about the marks on the rendered
> output (that is, after they already contributed)?
>
> > Nick Chase did a lot of legwork a few years back looking into what the
> > legal need is to get all docs licensed cc-by, and we think we need to have
> > all current contributors indicate in writing (somehow) that they license
> > the content cc-by. Then the CLA needs to either change or we need a 2nd CLA
> > for docs contributions.
>
> Are we saying here that current contributors to the project have not signed
> the CLA? I know this is potentially the case for authors who contributed to
> books written in sprints using external tools (Ops Guide, Design Arch Guide)
> but ultimately to get into e.g. openstack-manuals someone who has signed the
> CLA has to contribute the patch(es) and in doing so grants copyright to the
> "Project Manager" no? Maybe I am missing something but I don't understand
> why we would need a second CLA here as the existing one doesn't specify a
> license either, yet isn't it the mechanism we're using to distribute using
> Apache 2.0 today?
>
> > The desired outcomes are:
> > - every reader knows the license
> > - all people (corporate contributors, publishers) know if and how to reuse
> > the docs
>
> To be honest from previous discussions (which I believe kicked off Nick's
> expedition) I thought we had this nailed but now I'm more confused than when
> we started as it seems like we remain in complete limbo on this. Currently
> we have:
>
> - Some books reporting ASL 2.0: E.g.
> http://docs.openstack.org/high-availability-guide/content/
> - Some books reporting CC-BY-SA: E.g.
> http://docs.openstack.org/openstack-ops/content/
> - Some books reporting BOTH: E.g.
> http://docs.openstack.org/admin-guide-cloud/content/
>
> ...and I have no idea which ones are correct. The earlier replies seemed to
> indicate we should be displaying both, but more recent ones seem to indicate
> we should be only displaying ASL 2.0. So in both my roles, as a downstream
> and as a contributor I can now count myself as thoroughly confused.
>

> -Steve
>
> > - every contributor knows their rights when they write upstream docs
> > - contributors are not held liable if the docs are wrong
> > - use of the OpenStack brand and logo still go through normal brand
> > guidelines
> >
> > That's all I can think of for now. Let me know if there are additional
> > questions or difference in opinion on the outcomes we need.
> >
> > Anne
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-docs mailing list
> > OpenStack-docs@lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
> >
>
> --
> Steve Gordon, RHCE
> Sr. Technical Product Manager,
> Red Hat Enterprise Linux OpenStack Platform
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-docs mailing list
> OpenStack-docs@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
>

--
Steve Gordon, RHCE
Sr. Technical Product Manager,
Red Hat Enterprise Linux OpenStack Platform