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. - RF

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

On Mar 20, 2014, at 12:12 PM, Russell Bryant <rbryant@redhat.com> 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.

Correct. Since this is new documentation, not embedded in source code, it falls under that Board resolution and can go out with CC-BY. Thanks, Jonathan

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 02:52:41PM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote: [Jonathan wrote:]

...

Correct. Since this is new documentation, not embedded in source code, it falls under that Board resolution and can go out with CC-BY. Thanks,

Thanks for the clarification.

One more point: which version of CC-BY?

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/

Not sure but just noting that this Board resolution: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMinutes#.... does not indicate a version, and at the time of the resolution 3.0 was the latest version and CC BY 4.0 hadn't been released yet. - RF

I agree. We need to make sure that people understand when they are under which license. -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Bryce [mailto:jonathan@openstack.org] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 8:58 AM To: legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [legal-discuss] License for design specifications (blueprints) On Mar 20, 2014, at 12:12 PM, Russell Bryant <rbryant@redhat.com> 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.

Correct. Since this is new documentation, not embedded in source code, it falls under that Board resolution and can go out with CC-BY. Thanks, Jonathan _______________________________________________ legal-discuss mailing list legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss Please consider the environment before printing this email. The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster@dlapiper.com. Thank you.