[occi-wg] OCCI Editor Getting Started Guide (docs/README.txt)

[Sam Johnston]

Andre,

The intention is that the specification be available under both licenses (at
the user's discretion). Being available under a Creative Commons
license is basically
a requirement<http://www.google.com/search?q=cloud+api++%22creative+commons%22>for
Cloud APIs nowdays (much to my satisfaction) and anything else -
especially the OGF default (which is far more restrictive than even the DMTF
license!) - will surely stifle adoption whether justified or not. If that
doesn't work for the OGF then I'll just release it under CC myself and
remove/rewrite others' contributions (assuming they don't agree to do the
same, which would surprise me).

I think the important thing in terms of the *normative* specification is to
rely on trademark rather than copyright law - at the end of the day it's
more effective anyway and it doesn't prevent your APIs from being reused by
others.

Sam

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Andre Merzky <andre at merzky.net> wrote:

> Quoting [Sam Johnston] (Feb 18 2010):
> >
> > We maintain a Google Code repository at
> > http://code.google.com/p/occi/ ...
>
> Hi Sam, all,
>
> the project states on the entry page, as it should :-), that all
> material is under OGF IPR.
> http://code.google.com/p/occi/source/browse/docs/occi-copyright.pdf
> states pretty much the same, but additionally states that
>
>  "The Open Cloud Computing Interface (OCCI) by Open Grid Forum is
>  dual-licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
>  License"
>
> While I am a big fan of dual- or multi-licensing for source code, I
> would appreciate the motivation for dual-licensing the OCCI
> specification: what is the problem you are trying to solve?
>
> In particular, I do not understand how Creative Commons makes sense
> for a *normative* specification, as the usual use case for CC is to
> create derivative work - which almost by definition will break the
> standard, and will lead to confusion what document remains normative
> etc.
>
> Also, there are two modi operandi for dual licensing, AFAICS: either
> the end user is free to pick what license to apply to the document,
> or the end user is required to adhere to the specifics of both
> licenses.  I assume that you choose the first modus, but that is not
> explicitely stated in the document - as statement to that respect
> should be added.  The second modus wuld not make much sense IMHO, as
> the OGF IPR seems, to me, more constrained than CC (no changes
> allowed), and the additional CC license would thus have no effect
> whatsoever?
>
> I know that license discussions can be tedious and tend to be
> emotional.  Also, we all are probably not lawyers :-)  Anyway, if
> you or someone initiated could shed some light on how and why that
> approach was chosen, I would appreciate the insight.
>
> Best, Andre.
>
> --
> Nothing is ever easy.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20100221/2a00adcf/attachment.html