Open Stack

On 03/20/2014 02:35 PM, Anne Gentle wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com
> <mailto:rfontana at 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#Approval_of_the_CCBY_License_for_Documentation.
>     >
>     > 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