On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Ben Swartzlander <ben@swartzlander.org> wrote:
I started a thread [1] on the dev mailing list but wasn't able to get any helpful answers...
The Manila project is creating a new repo for specs, and while looking at what other projects have done for specs repos, I could not figure out which license was being used. It seems that most specs repos (nova, cinder, neutron, contain a mixture of Apache 2.0 licensed stuff and CCBY (Creative Commons) licensed stuff.
Some of these repos contain apparently-conflicting license declarations, with CCBY specified in the LICENSE file, but Apache 2.0 specified in the setup.cfg file.
In all cases, individual files contain their own license declarations at the top and all of these repos contain some clearly Apache 2.0 licensed files (the python code in the repo) and some CCBY licensed files (the specs themselves).
It seems unavoidable that we will have a similar situation in Manila, so I'm trying to figure out what to do at the top level for the LICENSE file and what license to point to in setup.cfg. Is there a way to explain to users that the project contains a mixture of 2 licenses? Is that acceptable or desirable?
Based on a previous discussion, CC-BY should be used for specs: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/legal-discuss/2014-March/000201.html Using Apache 2.0 for python code in the repo is fine. The license file can just explain the use of 2 licenses. -- Russell Bryant