[SeasonOfDocs] licensing discussion

[Jo Cook]

Hi Cameron,

I've put this out to as many people as I can think of- both at Astun
Technology and elsewhere. I hope I'll get a nice spread of answers within
the fortnight- I'll let you know!

Jo

On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 11:17 PM Cameron Shorter <cameron.shorter at gmail.com>
wrote:

> For those of you working at a company which may have an opinion on the
> license selection we choose for TheGoodDocsProject, could you please reach
> out to your legal department and ask them:
> 1. Do they have an opinion on which licenses we select?
> 2. Are they able to provide their opinion within a week or two?
>
> I expect we will select one of the permissive licenses, probably CC0 for
> media. I'm less opinionated about any code we create but suspect we would
> adopt the license(s) of software projects we extend.
>
> On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 at 05:52, Clarence Cromwell <
> clarencewcromwell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SeasonOfDocs mailing list
> SeasonOfDocs at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/seasonofdocs
>


-- 
------------------------
http://about.me/jocook
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/seasonofdocs/attachments/20190708/da2bf39d/attachment-0001.html>