Okay, it looks to me like the reference to CC-BY-SA 1.0 came from
Nathan (commit ef7418421b3748c712019c8aedd02b8005c1e1ea, September
2015), and he points at the COPYING file, which was set in commit
ed0653b493a3f919a3abc37a0aa9b5aa29ae0b0e by Sage (acting for Inktank,
who at the time probably owned all the doc licenses?).
Guys, any thoughts about how this happened? Was there an explicit
version chosen by anybody, or did Nathan just fill it in with 1.0?
Looking at the shortlog summary, there have been plenty of one-off
contributions but not many people we'd need to worry about as a
practical matter. :)
The COPYING file at the time said:
Files: doc/*
Copyright: (c) 2010-2012 New Dream Network and contributors
License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA)
But SUSE (if I remember correctly) requires that the license strings be
unambiguous and according to https://spdx.org/licenses/ so I was forced
to choose a version. I should have chosen the latest version, mea culpa.
My goal at the time was to bring the license line in the spec file into
closer alignment with what is specified in COPYING. (Not sure how Debian
got into the picture?)
For me, the takeaways here are:
1. the license strings in the spec file are not "binding" - they were
placed there in an attempt to summarize what was in COPYING at the time
2. the doc license string in COPYING did not specify the version number
3. In the absense of a version number, the latest version should apply.
Nathan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
