[SeasonOfDocs] licensing discussion

Tue Jul 23 14:48:09 PDT 2019

Hi folks! Sorry I had to leave the call early today. Next time I'll book
the room a little longer.

The proposed licensing structure is (also in the Google Doc here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17YFSSPbHl7FfPh-PQjjqVM9hlCHdVjSHW6p9XcN8ODw
)

Templates: CC-0, with expectation of attribution/link back to project
Documentation of how to use the templates/metadocumentation: CC-BY 4.0
Code snippets: Apache or MIT, with labeling of license
Tools (software): Apache or MIT

Templates or tools forked from other projects will keep their licenses.

We propose NOT to include templates, tools, code snippets, or any other
content licensed under any of these restrictive licenses:

No License
Unlicense
WTFPL
AGPL
CC BY-NC-* (this restricts commercial entities)
Private repositories

In order to contribute to the project templates (CC-0) I had to request
special permission from Google's Open Source Program Office, which they
provided. I ran this licensing structure by them and got a thumbs-up. :)

Please let me know if you have any questions!

Yours,

Erin

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 9:22 AM Jo Cook <jo.k.cook at gmail.com> wrote:

> That's good to hear.
>
> I asked the question (which is preferred- CC-By or CC-0) at my work, and
> on the OSGeo:UK discussion list, and the opinion was overwhelmingly in
> favour of CC-By. No real commercial justification or pros/cons were given,
> only that people generally like the idea of attribution. Someone enquired
> about why we haven't also considered GFDL (
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License) but I think
> the conditions rule that out anyhow.
>
> All the best
>
> Jo
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 5:18 PM Stephanie Blotner <sblotner59 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------
> http://about.me/jocook
> _______________________________________________
> SeasonOfDocs mailing list
> SeasonOfDocs at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/seasonofdocs
>

-- 
Erin McKean | Developer Relations Program Manager, Open Source Strategy |
emckean at google.com | she/her
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/seasonofdocs/attachments/20190723/f2136975/attachment-0001.html>