Open Stack

On 05/05/2016 03:24 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2016-05-05 12:03:38 -0400 (-0400), Ben Swartzlander wrote:
>> It appears that many of the existing specs repos contain a
>> confusing mixture of Apache 2.0 licensed code and Creative Commons
>> licensed docs.
> [...]
>
> Recollection is that the prose was intended to be under CC Attrib.
> in line with official documentation, while any sample source code
> was intended to be under ASL2 so that it could be directly used in
> similarly-licensed software. We likely do a terrible job of
> explaining that though, and maybe dual-licensing everything in specs
> repos makes more sense? This might also be a better thread to have
> on the legal-discuss@ ML.

We may ultimately need to consult legal experts, but I was hoping that 
we already had a clear guideline for specs licensing and it was merely 
being applied inconsistently. I figured the TC would know if a decision 
had been made about this.

I also have a feeling that dual-licensing would be the 
least-likely-to-fail option, however I haven't seen examples of how to 
properly dual-license a repo in OpenStack so I wasn't going to jump to 
that option first.

-Ben Swartzlander