I am not sure that I understand the question about source/output. Is this code?
I think that we need to keep ASL2 for code in the guides since the bylaws require it.
From: Anne Gentle [mailto:annegentle@justwriteclick.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 2:34 PM
To: openstack-docs@lists.openstack.org; legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [legal-discuss] docs licenses: current state and desired state
Hi all,
As promised I investigated the current state of our community guides license indicators and added to the wiki page at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Documentation/ContentSpecs
Current states:
OpenStack Architecture Design Guide: Apache 2.0 and CC-by-sa 3.0
OpenStack Cloud Administrator Guide: Apache 2.0 and CC-by-sa 3.0
OpenStack Install Guides (all): Apache 2.0
OpenStack High Availability Guide: Apache 2.0
OpenStack Configuration Reference: Apache 2.0
OpenStack Security Guide: CC-by 3.0
Virtual Machine Image Guide: CC-by 3.0
OpenStack Operations Guide: CC-by 3.0
OpenStack End User Guide: CC-by 3.0
OpenStack Admin User Guide: CC-by 3.0
Command-Line Interface Reference: CC-by 3.0
Contributor dev docs (docs.openstack.org/developer/<projectname>): none indicated in output; Apache 2.0 in repo
OpenStack API Quick Start: none indicated in output; Apache 2.0 in repo
API Complete Reference: none indicated in output; Apache 2.0 in repo
Infrastructure User Manual: none indicated in output; CC-by 3.0 in repo
Desired state:
CC-by 3.0 indicated in the output for all guides.
Apache 2.0 also indicated in the output for guides containing code and content.
Tasks:
Change first five listed guides to CC-by 3.0 in source and output.
Change API Quick Start to RST so that cc-by 3.0 can be easily indicated.
Questions:
On guides where the output doesn't indicate a license but the source does; is that sufficient?
Thanks for the help -- I can take the tasks on myself, but would like guidance on whether a license indicator on output is required.
Thanks,
Anne
--
Anne Gentle
annegentle@justwriteclick.com