Open Stack

>>> On 3/20/2014 at 12:47 PM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote: 
> 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#A
> pproval_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.

I'm unaware of a memo that needs to be raised to the Board, but will check into it.  If there is a need for a Board action, we'll address it at the April 3rd Board meeting.

AlanClark