Licensing for Uptane Standard

[jhdalek55]

I have taken a quick look and I can't find any licensing statement mentioned either in the Standard or on the repository. Do we not have one? Or is this just an oversight in terms of making mention of it on the repo? Or is this not needed because we are under the auspices of a Standards organization?

[iramcdonald]

Hi Lois, No, we definitely need explicit licensing for the Standard and Deployment Considerations and any other public artifacts (white papers, slide sets, etc.) on our website. For the Standard and Deployment Considerations (because they're frameworks with concrete requirements), Apache v2 would be most appropriate (a superset of BSD and MIT). Both IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group and LF OpenPrinting migrated all their code and design documents to Apache v2 about five years ago. Seth Newberry at JDF says it's the best choice in most cases. Every version of GPL/LGPL is intellectual property poison and should never be considered. https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License#Apache_License_2.0 For everything else (except for white papers - which are design documents - Apache v2), probably Creative Commons. It's dominant in academic papers, music, and other arts. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license Cheers, - Ira *Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)* *Chair - SAE Trust Anchors and Authentication TF* *Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG* *Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG* *Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WGSecretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working GroupCo-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WGIETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIBBlue Roof Music / High North Inchttp://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic <http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc <http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>mailto: ***@***.*** ***@***.***>(permanent) PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 906-494-2434*

…

On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 12:40 PM Lois Anne DeLong ***@***.***> wrote: I have taken a quick look and I can't find any licensing statement mentioned either in the Standard or on the repository. Do we not have one? Or is this just an oversight in terms of making mention of it on the repo? Or is this not needed because we are under the auspices of a Standards organization? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#243>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AE33UO6Y3J6HG5XVSXTWHRLWIZUXRANCNFSM6AAAAAASDUG7N4> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[jhdalek55]

Thanks @iramcdonald. Any volunteers out there that could help me work on this?

[hexsecs]

For whitepapers, slides, etc, I suggest CC BY-SA or possibly CC BY. Share-alike, could be tricky the Uptane slides are part of slides that have information that cannot be shared.

[hexsecs]

For the standard itself, https://choosealicense.com/licenses/ does a great job describing the different tradeoffs of licence types.