[SeasonOfDocs] licensing discussion

[Cameron Shorter]

For our templates, I'm in favour of "CC-0 with a (polite, not binding) 
request for attribution". I feel  there will be situations where 
enforcing attribution will be inappropriate. E.g.: A tweet or elevator 
pitch where every word counts.

Cameron

On 3/7/19 7:46 am, Jennifer Rondeau wrote:
> I'm fine with CC-0.
>
> FWIW, the Kubernetes docs license is CC-BY and the code license is 
> Apache 2.0. We do not have an explicit code license in the docs 
> repository, however, which has led to some occasional confusion when 
> people want to use the docs with the example code. Example code isn't 
> quite the same thing as what we intend to provide as code/tools -- but 
> it's analogous enough that I offer the story as data to back the 
> "let's be careful to license everything appropriately" approach.
>
> And +1000 to a "how to attribute" section in our now nicely named 
> metadocumentation.
>
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 4:51 PM Erin McKean <emckean at google.com 
> <mailto:emckean at google.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi folks!
>
>     One of our action items from the past meeting was to discuss how
>     to license any templates or other content produced by the project.
>
>     For background, here's a list of CC licenses:
>     https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
>     And here are software licenses (although I don't think that
>     software licenses are generally useful for templates we should
>     probably have the licensing discussion all in one go and since we
>     may release tools/code that would be better served by software
>     licenses ....) https://opensource.org/licenses
>
>     For templates, I think the discussion is "what do we want to
>     enable?" rather than "what do we want to prevent?" since bad
>     actors are not noted for their scrupulous attention to licensing
>     details. :)
>
>     CC-0 or CC-BY would be the two most open licenses. I like CC-BY
>     but CC-0 with a (polite, not binding) request for attribution
>     would be fine by me, too. FWIW, it is extremely difficult (to put
>     it mildly) to use anything AGPL-licensed at Google, so I would
>     strongly prefer to use Apache or MIT for any code/tools.
>
>     In any case, I think we should have a "how to attribute" section
>     in our metadocumentation  and also reach out to the CC people when
>     we've got something we want to share so that we can be included in
>     their list of open culture resources.
>
>     Other open questions:
>      * what do other similar projects use for their licenses?
>      * any other licenses on the no-go list? (e.g. NC-type licenses
>     close off a lot of possible users/contributors)
>      * would we be incorporating content that would need SA-type
>     licenses? Would we SA individual tools/docs?
>
>     In responding, if you could please state either a clear preference
>     or a "anything's fine by me" we can try for a rough consensus
>     quickly -- since relicensing is problematic we probably need to
>     have this decided before anything substantial gets published.
>
>     Also I am NOT A LAWYER, just a copyright geek, so I would like to
>     collect questions and then take them to A Real Lawyer™️ for answers.
>
>     Thanks!
>
>     Erin
>
>     -- 
>     Erin McKean | Developer Relations Program Manager, Open Source
>     Strategy |emckean at google.com <mailto:emckean at google.com> | she/her
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     SeasonOfDocs mailing list
>     SeasonOfDocs at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:SeasonOfDocs at lists.osgeo.org>
>     https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/seasonofdocs
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SeasonOfDocs mailing list
> SeasonOfDocs at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/seasonofdocs

-- 
Cameron Shorter
Technology Demystifier
Open Technologies and Geospatial Consultant

M +61 (0) 419 142 254

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/seasonofdocs/attachments/20190703/c2890043/attachment.html>