Is Apache 2.0 license correct?

[schlomo]

I noticed that the license here is Apache 2.0 - is this really appropriate for a repo that won't provide code but rather documentation? Maybe CC-BY-SA would be better suited?

[tonit]

Question to @cdavisafc and generally current maintainers. It looks like for "demo code" ASL2 is already used elsewhere (looking at the very good potatohead project of the app delivery sig).

[scottrigby]

Precedence:

Both Apache 2.0 and CC by 4.0:

• https://github.com/cncf/cnf-wg/blob/master/LICENSE.md

Apache 2.0 only:

• https://github.com/cncf/wg-ci/blob/master/LICENSE
• https://github.com/cncf/wg-serverless/blob/master/LICENSE
• https://github.com/cncf/wg-networking/blob/master/LICENSE
• https://github.com/cncf/udpa/blob/main/LICENSE

[scottrigby]

@schlomo I've converted this issue to a discussion. Does this answer your question?

[scottrigby]

@schlomo I have referenced this discussion from open-gitops/documents#2

[scottrigby]

Answering this for posterity. The GItOps Working Group (this repo) has adopted Apache 2 (local copy), and we have since decided to adopt both licenses for OpenGitOps projects: Creative Commons for content, Apache 2 for any code.

See https://github.com/open-gitops/project/blob/main/LICENSE.md.