[SeasonOfDocs] licensing discussion

Tue Jul 9 09:18:21 PDT 2019

Following up on licensing, I heard back that CC-0 and C-by licenses are
generally acceptable at Uber.

Thanks all,
Stephanie

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 7:36 AM Stephanie Blotner <sblotner59 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Jo,
>
> It does not rule out CC-0 or CC-By, it will just require additional
> approval from Uber open source. I wouldn’t consider this a blocker, as
> unfortunately I can’t submit a request until a Public repo and license is
> created.
>
> On Jul 9, 2019, at 1:27 AM, Jo Cook <jo.k.cook at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> Is this true for documentation as well as any code snippets? Does this
> effectively rule out our desire to use CC-0 or CC-By?
>
> Jo
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:22 PM Stephanie Blotner <sblotner59 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> http://about.me/jocook
>
>

-- 
Stephanie Blotner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/seasonofdocs/attachments/20190709/ba0f3fdf/attachment.html>