[SeasonOfDocs] licensing discussion

[Clarence Cromwell]

I think CCO would work for the templates, which is where I'm most
interested in contributing.

I hope the templates can be used by corporate doc teams as well as
open-source teams. I know next to nothing about licensing, but I think that
would at least require the we allow commercial use without requiring
share-alike licensing (which companies like mine would probably avoid).

Clarence



On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:47 PM Jennifer Rondeau <jennifer.rondeau at gmail.com>
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> 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 | she/her
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SeasonOfDocs mailing list
>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/seasonofdocs/attachments/20190707/951ad12f/attachment.html>