Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Inconsistent reference to license for docs #21

Open
swinslow opened this issue Feb 28, 2019 · 2 comments
Open

Inconsistent reference to license for docs #21

swinslow opened this issue Feb 28, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

@swinslow
Copy link

Hello,

The README.md and LICENSE.docs files are inconsistent about which license applies to the go-metrics documentation.

The README.md file says that docs are:
"...licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License under the terms and conditions set forth in the file "LICENSE.docs". You may obtain a duplicate copy of the same license, titled CC-BY-SA-4.0, at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/."

The bolded items say that the docs license is CC-BY-SA-4.0, but the italicized items say that it is CC-BY-4.0 (which is a different license).

If the intent is for the docs license to be CC-BY-4.0, could the following changes be made?

1. The LICENSE.docs file should likely be replaced with the CC-BY-4.0 license text, available from https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.txt

2. The bolded reference above to **CC-BY-SA-4.0** in README.md should likely be changed to CC-BY-4.0.

(I've noted a similar issue for docker/spdystream at moby/spdystream#70, and for docker/swarm at docker-archive/classicswarm#2833)

Thank you!

@swinslow
Copy link
Author

swinslow commented Jun 6, 2020

For a similar issue in docker/classicswarm, I note that it has now been corrected to refer to CC-BY-SA-4.0 in all cases (see issue, pr).

Is it possible to apply the same changes here, so that the license statement will be consistent?

@thaJeztah
Copy link
Member

I recall these were added by request from the legal team at the time, but given that there's no real docs in this repository, I'd personally be in favor of removing that reference altogether.

I'd have to verify if there's no objections against that though

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants