On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Steve Gordon <sgordon@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
So sorry Steve, it _is_ confusing.
I'll give this my full attention when I'm back next week. Feel free to get more clarification here though! It's completely possible I'm not remembering everything.
Anne> -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
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-docs mailing list OpenStack-docs@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs