Open Stack

On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse.com> wrote:

> On 09/30/2013 03:47 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> > On 09/30/2013 03:32 PM, Anne Gentle wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse.com
> >> <mailto:aj at suse.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>     Looking at the license of our manuals, I'm a bit confused.
> >>
> >>     For example
> >>     http://docs.openstack.org/grizzly/openstack-compute/admin/content/and
> >>     http://docs.openstack.org/admin-guide-cloud/content/ both have
> Apache
> >>     License and a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License
> but
> >>     the wording suggests to me that the Apache License is the one to use
> >>     (correct?).
> >>
> >>     Newer manuals like the user-guide only have the Creative Commons:
> >>     Image Guide:
> >>     http://docs.openstack.org/image-guide/content/
> >>     End User Guide:
> >>     http://docs.openstack.org/user-guide/content/
> >>
> >>     Is this really the right license - or was that done by accident?
> >>     If the CC license is correct, will it work when we import content
> via
> >>     the autodocs from other OpenStack projects?
> >>
> >>
> >> Here's what I know.
> >>
> >> You can apply Apache 2.0 to code easily, but it's harder to apply to
> >> docs exactly. We do apply a blanket Apache 2.0 statement for our
> >> documentation, but we have also brought in content that was licensed
> >> CC-BY-SA 3.0.
> >>
> >> At a OpenStack Foundation Board Meeting October 2012 we successfully had
> >> the board approve use of CC-BY 3.0 for all documentation contributions.
> >> Here are the official minutes.
> >>
> >>
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Governance/Foundation/15Oct2012BoardMinutes#Approval_of_the_CCBY_License_for_Documentation
> >>
> >> So the docbook bk files can be updated to
> >> use http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/ -- however I haven't
> >> investigated whether the tool chain enables cc-by instead of cc-by-sa. I
> >> think some action items we can take now are:
> >>
> >> 1. Determine if cc-by is a viable option in the book file by testing the
> >> maven plugin.
> >
> > I checked the sources, it should work.
> >
> > The End User Guid is already under cc-by - and looking at
> > http://docs.openstack.org/user-guide/content/ this works fine.
> >
> >> 2. Patch the books that were created after Oct 2012 with cc-by in the
> >> book file, such as the Image Guide, End User Guide, and Admin User
> Guide.
> >
> > I'll send a patch in a few minutes.
>
> I'll do:
>
> Remove:
> admin-guide-cloud        <legalnotice role="apache2">
>
>
This one is where I'm unsure we can proceed without legal guidance. The
sources gave their content under Apache 2.0 license. Is there a conversion?
That's where I want a lawyer to tell us.


> Change to cc-by (the guide had both licenses):
> bk-admin-guide-cloud.xml:        <legalnotice role="cc-by-sa">
>
>
Same here.


> Keep for now:
> bk-config-ref.xml:        <legalnotice role="apache2">
> bk_openstackinstallguide.xml:        <legalnotice role="apache2">
>
>
Yes keep for now, until we have legal guidance.


>
> No change needed:
> bk-imageguide.xml:        <legalnotice role="cc-by">
> bk_openstack-sec-guide.xml:        <legalnotice role="cc-by">
> bk-admin-user-guide.xml:        <legalnotice role="cc-by">
> bk-user-guide.xml:        <legalnotice role="cc-by">
>
>
Ok, great! Thanks for checking on the output.

Anne


>  Andreas
> --
>  Andreas Jaeger aj@{suse.com,opensuse.org} Twitter/Identica: jaegerandi
>   SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
>    GF: Jeff Hawn,Jennifer Guild,Felix Imendörffer,HRB16746 (AG Nürnberg)
>     GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
>



-- 
Anne Gentle
annegentle at justwriteclick.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/attachments/20130930/e9e69584/attachment.html>