Hi,
Certain manuals available at docs.openstack.org contain this legal notice:
Copyright © 2013 OpenStack Foundation
Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License. followed immdiately by a box that says:
Except where otherwise noted, this document is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
This github repository suggests at quickest glance that Apache License 2.0 is the license: https://github.com/openstack/openstack-manuals
Some docs writers at Red Hat were previously under the impression that CC BY was the license of OpenStack documentation, which I assume is incorrect except for material specifically on wiki.openstack.org.
Can anyone clarify? We'd like to adapt some portions of the upstream documentation in our product documentation and we want to make sure we get the licensing right.
Thanks!
Richard Fontana Legal Red Hat, Inc.
Richard --
The current situation is in flux, just a little. My understanding is that there is a letter for the board explaining the process for moving the docs to CC-By, but that it needs to be addressed at the board level, because that's where it lies in the charter.
---- Nick
On 12/11/2013 2:15 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
Hi,
Certain manuals available at docs.openstack.org contain this legal notice:
Copyright © 2013 OpenStack Foundation
Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License.
followed immdiately by a box that says:
Except where otherwise noted, this document is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
This github repository suggests at quickest glance that Apache License 2.0 is the license: https://github.com/openstack/openstack-manuals
Some docs writers at Red Hat were previously under the impression that CC BY was the license of OpenStack documentation, which I assume is incorrect except for material specifically on wiki.openstack.org.
Can anyone clarify? We'd like to adapt some portions of the upstream documentation in our product documentation and we want to make sure we get the licensing right.
Thanks!
Richard Fontana Legal Red Hat, Inc.
Openstack-docs mailing list Openstack-docs@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
Thanks for asking Richard. The Board meeting notes with the CC-BY decision are at:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMinutes#...
Alice King has a draft memo to go to the Board the next time it gets on the Agenda with more details. I can certainly answer questions you have, though I did delegate this chase to the appropriately named Nick Chase. :)
Thanks, Anne
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.comwrote:
Hi,
Certain manuals available at docs.openstack.org contain this legal notice:
Copyright © 2013 OpenStack Foundation
Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License.
followed immdiately by a box that says:
Except where otherwise noted, this document is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
This github repository suggests at quickest glance that Apache License 2.0 is the license: https://github.com/openstack/openstack-manuals
Some docs writers at Red Hat were previously under the impression that CC BY was the license of OpenStack documentation, which I assume is incorrect except for material specifically on wiki.openstack.org.
Can anyone clarify? We'd like to adapt some portions of the upstream documentation in our product documentation and we want to make sure we get the licensing right.
Thanks!
Richard Fontana Legal Red Hat, Inc.
legal-discuss mailing list legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss
Thanks for the clarification Anne.
At the moment I do have one question: I actually only see the Apache/CC BY-SA notice on one manual, http://docs.openstack.org/admin-guide-cloud/content/index.html
Is the Apache License 2.0 notice here something that should be ignored for purposes of understanding how that manual is licensed? I'm asking about this one because we are planning on producing one item of documentation that will adapt some material from this particular manual. Our usual product documentation license is itself actually CC BY-SA 3.0. It's not a huge issue one way or the other of course.
(FWIW our original thought was to use CC BY for our downstream documentation to harmonize it with the upstream documentation; at the time our docs writers were, I think, assuming that the CC BY licensing of OpenStack documentation would be effective by the time we'd be publishing our downstream documentation.)
Thanks, - Richard
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:51:45AM -0600, Anne Gentle wrote:
Thanks for asking Richard. The Board meeting notes with the CC-BY decision are at:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMinutes# Approval_of_the_CCBY_License_for_Documentation
Alice King has a draft memo to go to the Board the next time it gets on the Agenda with more details. I can certainly answer questions you have, though I did delegate this chase to the appropriately named Nick Chase. :)
Thanks, Anne
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
Hi, Certain manuals available at docs.openstack.org contain this legal notice: Copyright 2013 OpenStack Foundation Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License. followed immdiately by a box that says: Except where otherwise noted, this document is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode This github repository suggests at quickest glance that Apache License 2.0 is the license: https://github.com/openstack/openstack-manuals Some docs writers at Red Hat were previously under the impression that CC BY was the license of OpenStack documentation, which I assume is incorrect except for material specifically on wiki.openstack.org. Can anyone clarify? We'd like to adapt some portions of the upstream documentation in our product documentation and we want to make sure we get the licensing right. Thanks! Richard Fontana Legal Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ legal-discuss mailing list legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss-- Anne Gentle annegentle@justwriteclick.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Fontana" rfontana@redhat.com To: "Anne Gentle" annegentle@justwriteclick.com
Thanks for the clarification Anne.
At the moment I do have one question: I actually only see the Apache/CC BY-SA notice on one manual, http://docs.openstack.org/admin-guide-cloud/content/index.html
Is the Apache License 2.0 notice here something that should be ignored for purposes of understanding how that manual is licensed? I'm asking about this one because we are planning on producing one item of documentation that will adapt some material from this particular manual. Our usual product documentation license is itself actually CC BY-SA 3.0. It's not a huge issue one way or the other of course.
(FWIW our original thought was to use CC BY for our downstream documentation to harmonize it with the upstream documentation; at the time our docs writers were, I think, assuming that the CC BY licensing of OpenStack documentation would be effective by the time we'd be publishing our downstream documentation.)
Thanks,
- Richard
Hi all,
It's been brought to my attention that despite the resolution below being passed quite some time ago the situation at docs.openstack.org basically remains the same as it was when Richard sent the above with some guides using ASL 2.0 and some using CC-BY (and some like the API reference not listing any license at all).
Is this just an oversight?
Thanks,
Steve
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:51:45AM -0600, Anne Gentle wrote:
Thanks for asking Richard. The Board meeting notes with the CC-BY decision are at:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMinutes# Approval_of_the_CCBY_License_for_Documentation
Alice King has a draft memo to go to the Board the next time it gets on the Agenda with more details. I can certainly answer questions you have, though I did delegate this chase to the appropriately named Nick Chase. :)
Thanks, Anne
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
Hi, Certain manuals available at docs.openstack.org contain this legal notice: Copyright 2013 OpenStack Foundation Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License. followed immdiately by a box that says: Except where otherwise noted, this document is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode This github repository suggests at quickest glance that Apache License 2.0 is the license: https://github.com/openstack/openstack-manuals Some docs writers at Red Hat were previously under the impression that CC BY was the license of OpenStack documentation, which I assume is incorrect except for material specifically on wiki.openstack.org. Can anyone clarify? We'd like to adapt some portions of the upstream documentation in our product documentation and we want to make sure we get the licensing right. Thanks! Richard Fontana Legal Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ legal-discuss mailing list legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss-- Anne Gentle annegentle@justwriteclick.com
Openstack-docs mailing list Openstack-docs@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
I'll be brief as I can -- on vacation this week so I may not be able to respond again in a timely way but here's what I know.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Steve Gordon sgordon@redhat.com wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Fontana" rfontana@redhat.com To: "Anne Gentle" annegentle@justwriteclick.com
Thanks for the clarification Anne.
At the moment I do have one question: I actually only see the Apache/CC BY-SA notice on one manual, http://docs.openstack.org/admin-guide-cloud/content/index.html
Is the Apache License 2.0 notice here something that should be ignored for purposes of understanding how that manual is licensed?
The mechanics of why that text appears: the clouddocs-maven-plugin continues to have that license when the pom.xml file has it set at build time.
The reason that text hasn't changed: Since we don't have governance in place that indicates to a contributor that their content is licensed in a particular way, we have continued to have both licenses on the docs. Until the tie-in between gerrit and Foundation license agreement is resolved, we have not had a clear way forward. That bug is logged here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/openstack-ci/+bug/1311665
The new RST/sphinx web design has only CC-By indicator on each page though, so we need to get resolution.
Thanks for bringing it up.
Richard, do you have any ideas for next steps for the bug, described as:
Currently, both the documentation (e.g. [1] [2]) and our tools enforce having to join the Foundation before being allowed to submit a patch to OpenStack. However from a recent discussion on the legal list [3] it appears that there is no basis for this:
"ATC is defined to require someone to be an Individual Member, but ATC is concerned with voting for the Technical Committee, it does not restrict contributions. Anyone, member or non-member, can submit a contribution if they have signed the relevant CLA."
It would be awesome if we could make "joining the foundation" optional, something that people do if they want to. It would remove one barrier to making contributions, especially in the context of drive-by/volunteer contributors.
I'm asking
about this one because we are planning on producing one item of documentation that will adapt some material from this particular manual. Our usual product documentation license is itself actually CC BY-SA 3.0. It's not a huge issue one way or the other of course.
I think our intention is to most closely match Apache 2.0 in the docs licensing. The board resolution at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMinutes#.... does not have a version number.
We do need a transition plan -- ideally by April 30, when we are planning to publish with the new web design.
Let me know what I can do to help. Anne
(FWIW our original thought was to use CC BY for our downstream documentation to harmonize it with the upstream documentation; at the time our docs writers were, I think, assuming that the CC BY licensing of OpenStack documentation would be effective by the time we'd be publishing our downstream documentation.)
Thanks,
- Richard
Hi all,
It's been brought to my attention that despite the resolution below being passed quite some time ago the situation at docs.openstack.org basically remains the same as it was when Richard sent the above with some guides using ASL 2.0 and some using CC-BY (and some like the API reference not listing any license at all).
Is this just an oversight?
Thanks,
Steve
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:51:45AM -0600, Anne Gentle wrote:
Thanks for asking Richard. The Board meeting notes with the CC-BY
decision
are at:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMinutes#
Approval_of_the_CCBY_License_for_Documentation
Alice King has a draft memo to go to the Board the next time it gets
on the
Agenda with more details. I can certainly answer questions you have,
though
I did delegate this chase to the appropriately named Nick Chase. :)
Thanks, Anne
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Richard Fontana rfontana@redhat.com wrote:
Hi, Certain manuals available at docs.openstack.org contain this legal notice: Copyright 2013 OpenStack Foundation Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");you
may not use this file except in compliance with the License. Youmay
obtain a copy of the License at http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing,software
distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License. followed immdiately by a box that says: Except where otherwise noted, this document is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode This github repository suggests at quickest glance that ApacheLicense
2.0 is the license: https://github.com/openstack/openstack-manuals Some docs writers at Red Hat were previously under the impressionthat
CC BY was the license of OpenStack documentation, which I assume is incorrect except for material specifically on wiki.openstack.org. Can anyone clarify? We'd like to adapt some portions of theupstream
documentation in our product documentation and we want to makesure we
get the licensing right. Thanks! Richard Fontana Legal Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ legal-discuss mailing list legal-discuss@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-discuss-- Anne Gentle annegentle@justwriteclick.com
Openstack-docs mailing list Openstack-docs@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 08:51:47PM -0500, Anne Gentle wrote: [...]
The mechanics of why that text appears: the clouddocs-maven-plugin continues to have that license when the pom.xml file has it set at build time.
The reason that text hasn't changed: Since we don't have governance in place that indicates to a contributor that their content is licensed in a particular way, we have continued to have both licenses on the docs. Until the tie-in between gerrit and Foundation license agreement is resolved, we have not had a clear way forward. That bug is logged here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ openstack-ci/+bug/1311665
The new RST/sphinx web design has only CC-By indicator on each page though, so we need to get resolution.
Thanks for bringing it up.
Richard, do you have any ideas for next steps for the bug, described as:
Currently, both the documentation (e.g. [1] [2]) and our tools enforce having to join the Foundation before being allowed to submit a patch to OpenStack. However from a recent discussion on the legal list [3] it appears that there is no basis for this:
"ATC is defined to require someone to be an Individual Member, but ATC is concerned with voting for the Technical Committee, it does not restrict contributions. Anyone, member or non-member, can submit a contribution if they have signed the relevant CLA."
It would be awesome if we could make "joining the foundation" optional, something that people do if they want to. It would remove one barrier to making contributions, especially in the context of drive-by/volunteer contributors.
Hi,
I think as Jeremy Stanley said in his comment, and also based on some of the other discussion about this issue last year, this has to be worked out between the Foundation and the TC. It didn't seem as though anyone believed there was any need for a 'contributors must join the Foundation' requirement apart from the implementation of the 'ATC must be an Individual Member' requirement.
Richard
participants (4)
-
Anne Gentle
-
Nicholas Chase
-
Richard Fontana
-
Steve Gordon