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
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/<http://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<mailto:annegentle@justwriteclick.com> 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.
The source here would be e.g. DocBook XML files maintained in git repositories. The output would be e.g. HTML or PDFs. The guides are generated analogously to compilation of source code. In the cases Anne was asking about there is a repository that has a copy of the Apache License 2.0 but the output does not contain a copy of the license or otherwise indicate how the guide in question is licensed. RF On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 09:57:43PM +0000, Radcliffe, Mark wrote:
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
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.
_______________________________________________ legal-discuss mailing list legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
On Mar 24, 2015, at 4:57 PM, Radcliffe, Mark <Mark.Radcliffe@dlapiper.com> wrote: I am not sure that I understand the question about source/output. Is this code? It is marked up text or image content that is then built from the simple source to styled html or PDF. Generally, the OpenStack documentation consists of: - text that is embedded in the software code: http://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova - text that is scraped from the software code via an automated process such as http://docs.openstack.org/cli-reference/content/ - text that is created separately from the code (but still in a git repository with "builds" from source to output) such as http://docs.openstack.org/openstack-ops/content/ I think that we need to keep ASL2 for code in the guides since the bylaws require it. Yes, for actual code snippets we plan to keep and indicate Apache 2. However in an October 2012 board meeting they approved use of CC- by for content. https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMinutes So I'm trying to find out how to provide a consistent licensing display. Hope that clarifies - Thanks, Anne *From:* Anne Gentle [mailto:annegentle@justwriteclick.com <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 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.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 04:34:13PM -0500, Anne Gentle wrote:
On guides where the output doesn't indicate a license but the source does; is that sufficient?
Hi Anne, It might not be required but it seems preferable to have an indication of the license in the output too. Or at least some general statement about how guides are licensed by default, e.g. at docs.openstack.org or perhaps via the web page footer. Richard
participants (3)
-
Anne Gentle
-
Radcliffe, Mark
-
Richard Fontana