Open Stack

On 09/30/2013 03:59 PM, Anne Gentle wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse.com
> <mailto: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>
>     >> <mailto: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.

Doesn't that apply to some of the other guides as well since we moved
contents of the older guides around completely?

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

Ok, I've marked my patch as WORKINPROGRESS for now,

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/48942/

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