On 03/20/2014 02:35 PM, Anne Gentle wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com <mailto:rfontana@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 01:12:16PM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote: > On 03/20/2014 01:06 PM, Russell Bryant wrote: > > The Nova project is looking to move the content of design specifications > > to a git repository for the Juno development cycle [1]. The contents of > > this repository will not be code. It will primarily be documentation. > > > > Right now we put the Apache 2 LICENSE file in the repository and have > > the same license header in the template used for specifications. > > > > http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova-specs/tree/LICENSE > > http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/nova-specs/tree/template.rst > > > > Is this licensing the proper choice here? If not, what should we use > > instead? > > > > Thanks, > > > > [1] > > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-March/030576.html > > > > To possibly answer my own question ... > > I found in a previous thread that the board officially approved using > CC-BY for documentation here: > > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMinutes#.... > > So perhaps we should be using that since this is effectively > documentation? I also expect that this content be used heavily when > developing the official project documentation based on the features > described in these specifications.
Perhaps something that the Foundation staff should decide as part of implementing the CC BY policy for documentation.
+1
I know a draft memo is started but it hasn't made it on a Board meeting agenda to my knowledge.
OK. In that case, I guess I'm just going to leave the repo alone with its current license unless someone makes a firm recommendation otherwise. -- Russell Bryant