incorrect docs license grant

[onlyjob]

Similar to moby/spdystream#57

Docs released under Creative commons.

is an incorrect grant of license.

Please clearly specify scope of the license (which files), license name (e.g. "CC-BY-SA-4.0") and URL of the license. Also please commit complete text of the license.
Thanks.

[abronan]

Thanks @onlyjob.

@thaJeztah @moxiegirl I'm sorry for the ping. Even though the indications are pretty clear, do you have any pointer or advice on how to get this right? Can't seem to find a guideline to follow on another repository (under docker/). Thanks!

[thaJeztah]

@abronan I'm sorry, but I'm really bad at this licensing stuff, so I'm not really sure I can help out here. Maybe @moxiegirl know examples in the other repos.

Also, I see @onlyjob is quite active in reporting similar issues (which I think is great); @onlyjob do you have some pointers/examples to help out?

[onlyjob]

Thank you. in order to pass copyright compliance review I file those bugs for software I package for Debian...

Basically there are only few things to do:

• Agree what's documentation is (e.g. docs/*etc.).

The only thing that looks like documentation in libkv repository is README.md -- is it really worth having it under its own different license instead of Apache-2.0? I'd probably just remove "Docs released under Creative commons.". That's the easiest thing to do. :)

• Choose the license. If README.md should not be Apache-2.0 licensed (why?) then I'd save full text of the license to LICENSE.docs and add attribution text to README.

Here is the sample text I drafted:

Copyright 2014-2015 Docker Inc.
Files in "docs" folder are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
See full text of the license in "LICENSE.docs" file.

You may obtain a copy of the CC-BY-SA-4.0 License at
    http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

[abronan]

@onlyjob I only removed the incriminated line for the moment as suggested in #52 but I'll make sure I'll update using your guideline when we'll have a docs folder. Let me know if that sounds good to you and I'll merge.

Thanks again, very helpful!

[abronan]

Just realized I still need to choose the license for the documentation, I'll see what is common on other projects under docker/ and update accordingly.

[thaJeztah]

Thanks so much, @onlyjob! I think that's making things a lot clearer.

@abronan think you can work with that? I think option 1 is sufficient for now, we can always add option 2 if needed, wdyt?

@moxiegirl should we check the other repos as well?

[moxiegirl]

@thaJeztah @abronan Let me check with Legal on this. I'm sure we have someone to advise. @onlyjob thanks for pointing this out.

[abronan]

@moxiegirl Any news on that to make sure this is not a blocker for anybody packaging libkv? ;)

[moxiegirl]

@abronan Last week, I sent an email and got a reply that a Lawyer would be in touch. I'll kick that tire again today and come back at you.

[thaJeztah]

Once we have that response, perhaps we should capture some guidelines / examples in a document, as I think there are plans to move some packages to separate repos

[abronan]

thanks for the update @moxiegirl!

@thaJeztah yes good idea!

[onlyjob]

Unfortunately there is a problem, see #59 (comment)

[abronan]

@onlyjob Sorry should have waited for your feedback first. We'll look into that and fix asap, thanks!

[onlyjob]

Thanks, @abronan.

[onlyjob]

Creative commons instruct to use the following attribution text:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Adding "to end users" to attribution text is harmful because text of the license is not using such term. As result due to absence of "end users" definition nobody can use documentation... This is silly and perhaps the opposite of what was intended... :(