[SeasonOfDocs] licensing discussion

Mon Jul 8 15:22:11 PDT 2019

Hi all,

For Uber to contribute to this effort, here's what I learned:

   - We can easily contribute to these licenses: Apache 2, MIT, or BSD
   (I'll need to jump through more hoops for other licenses)
   - We *cannot* contribute to projects with the following licenses:
      - No License
      - AGPL
      - GPLv3
      - LGPLv3
   - It’s also preferred if the project has no Contributor License
   Agreement (CLA)

Best,
Stephanie

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:15 AM Stephanie Blotner <sblotner59 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>

-- 
Stephanie Blotner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/seasonofdocs/attachments/20190708/4cb2cd5b/attachment.html>