Add LICENSE-docs file

[celestehorgan]

Per CNCF policy, Docs are licensed under CC-BY-4.0 while code is licensed under Apache 2.0.

This commit adds a LICENSE-docs file to the project, as well as a license footer to the README.md to resolve this issue. Most docs repositories are code+docs, so for the average docs repository both are needed.

This came about after a short discussion with @amye and @cra :)

Signed-off-by: Celeste Horgan celeste@cncf.io

[karenhchu]

LGTM! Thanks for contributing this <3

[carolynvs]

LGTM

I know that none of my projects that I have worked on has done this. It may be worthwhile spreading the word a bit in the onboarding docs for the CNCF so that people are aware.

[carolynvs]

/hold for TOC approval

@jberkus @idvoretskyi Saad had asked that we use our project board's TOC Approval column to identify items that needed approval before going live (in project-templates and on the website). Since the board is a repo board and not an org board, I can't add items from this repository to it. Can we create a board at the CNCF org level so that we can give the TOC a single place to look for items that need review?

[idvoretskyi]

Ping @caniszczyk on the org-wide board question.

[celestehorgan]

@carolynvs - I'm not sure what the plan is for older projects, so I wouldn't worry too much about your projects. We definitely want to do this for new projects going forward, however :)

[carolynvs]

I just remembered that we can use "notes" on a project board and link to an issue in another repo. That seems like a totally workable way to do this without needing an org level project board. I've added this issue to the board.

[saad-ali]

I wonder if referencing two different licenses in the same github repo could cause problems?

As far as I can tell each existing repo either selects Apache 2.0 or CC-by-4.0 based on if it is a code or docs repo.

Could we do something like

Suggested change

	The #PROJECT_NAME documentation is licensed under a [CC-BY-4.0 license](./LICENSE-docs).
	<!-- Select one of the below, based on if this is a code or docs repo. -->
	$PROJECT_NAME is licensed under an [Apache 2.0 license](./LICENSE).
	#PROJECT_NAME documentation is licensed under a [CC-BY-4.0 license](./LICENSE-docs).

And we have two files in our template LICENSE-apache and LICENSE-ccby40 and ask users to rename to LICENSE depending on the choice above?

[carolynvs]

A lot of projects have their docs in the same repository as their code and don't break them out separately until the project is large or has complex docs. I think it would help to give them 3 options: code only repo, docs only repo, or combined repo.

[saad-ali]

Options sounds good to me

[jberkus]

I'd rather have LICENSE-code and LICENSE-docs files, to remove any confusion

[carolynvs]

I don't think that works with GitHub's autodetection of a license though, which personally I would care about.

[jberkus]

It doesn't work with it.

[chalin]

GitHub now supports and reports multiple licenses when a project has more than one. For details, see Easily discover and navigate to multiple licenses in repositories.

I see that this PR has been superseded by more recent changes (so maybe it should be closed or reworked), but I thought that I'd mention the new GitHub feature anyway.

Over on https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry.io (which is a website repo), we have:

• https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry.io/blob/main/LICENSE
• https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry.io/blob/main/LICENSE-CODE

GitHub links to them both just fine:

/cc @nate-double-u @caniszczyk

[jberkus]

OK, that definitely helps with that.

[caniszczyk]

That's correct, FYI there's an open issue here for GitHub to support multiple licenses todogroup/gh-issues#72

…

On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 1:18 PM Carolyn Van Slyck ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In README.md <#12 (comment)>: > \ No newline at end of file +<!-- TODO: Edit the project name heading and include a description of the project --> + +# License +$PROJECT_NAME is licensed under an [Apache 2.0 license](./LICENSE). +The #PROJECT_NAME documentation is licensed under a [CC-BY-4.0 license](./LICENSE-docs). I don't think that works with GitHub's autodetection of a license though, which personally I would care about. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#12 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAPSINDGQBLTZIYQTZLCKDT4QF65ANCNFSM47EI7JAQ> . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS <https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&utm_campaign=notification-email> .

-- Cheers, Chris Aniszczyk https://aniszczyk.org

[geekygirldawn]

@caniszczyk @amye @TheMoxieFox Is this something that we should still merge? We're cleaning up a few old things, but this looks like something that we might actually want to merge?

[amye]

This is actually helpful!

[dims]

Nit: line 46 we use $PROJECT_NAME and on line 47 we use #PROJECT_NAME

(we can merge this and open a fresh PR as well, not a blocker!)

[TheFoxAtWork]

LGTM - noting @dims comment for consistency.

[jberkus]

We should not merge this. As far as I know, there are still unresolved questions about it.

Specifically, cncf/foundation#230 is still unanswered.

[TheFoxAtWork]

@jberkus thanks for the link - I'll elevate this at the next GB meeting if not sooner through other means.