[SeasonOfDocs] licensing discussion

Mon Jul 8 09:15:38 PDT 2019

Thanks Cameron,

I've reached out, but haven't heard anything back yet.

- Stephanie

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 8:33 AM Jo Cook <jo.k.cook at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> SeasonOfDocs mailing list
> SeasonOfDocs at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/seasonofdocs
>

-- 
Stephanie Blotner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/seasonofdocs/attachments/20190708/fbe736fe/attachment.html>