Thanks a lot @moxiegirl!

LGTM

@thaJeztah does that sound good to you? 😃

Yes, SGTM, and happy to hear a "how to" will be written as well.

I recently saw a PR in another project, that might be of interest; apparently, GitHub has a "detection mechanism" that is able to automatically report the license that applies in a repository. I haven't looked deeply into that, and not sure if it will be able to detect repositories that have two different licenses, but it would be nice if we had a description so that GitHub is able to do its magic;

More info can be found here: cakephp/cakephp#7396 (and the links in that PR). Perhaps the contractor can test if the current description works for that, and include it in the "how to".

Before I give my full "LGTM"; Some things that may need to be checked with legal as well (I was reading up on some things a while ago, but IANAL and its all confusing stuff);

• As requested in incorrect docs license grant #50, we may have to describe explicitly what we regard to be docs, and what code (is a style sheet in the documentation code, or documentation? Is Markdown code or docs, what about images?)
• I read that copyrights don't need an "end" year (if that is correct, it would save maintenance, having to change the - 2015 to - 2016 next year)
• The "all rights reserved" notice is obsolete. IIUC, copyright is always preserved. If it's indeed obsolete, it may be better to remove it (it really confused me at first; as it felt as if it conflicted with the licenses)
• Please check if the "except as follows" snippet is correct to use here, because (also IIUC) "copyright" is separate from licensing; I.e,, Docker will always have the copyright, but permits others to use the code and docs, within the limitations specified in the license(s).

Sorry for the lengthy comment; just hope it helps as the "how to" will be used as a template for other projects, so could be important to get right ❤️

Thanks for the thorough review, let's figure out those last details here and make this useful for other projects as well then ;)

@thaJeztah @abronan So, the Copyright notice language is dictated by legal. So, I'd prefer not to change it as their job is knowing the law in this regard. The exact message I was given

--->
It looks like Docker generally uses the Apache license for code, but that’s not appropriate for documentation; the Creative Commons license is good and the current statements in Github just need a little more specificity. First, decide which files or repo folder contains the documentation, e.g. docs/*. Second, save the full text of the Creative Commons license to LICENSE.docs and add the following to the README.

Copyright © 2014-2015 Docker, Inc. All rights reserved, except as follows. The files in the "docs" folder are licensed to end users 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 form of copyright notice for commercial products is:

Copyright © 2014-2015 Docker, Inc. All rights reserved.
<----

As you can see, the actual implementation of the license here depends on the presence of a docs directory that we don't yet have here. We do have a README so that's why the tweak.

Thanks @moxiegirl, in that case LGTM :-)

Thanks @thaJeztah @abronan for the merge --- I don't have perms here for that. :-D

@moxiegirl Woop sorry will make sure I add you to the repo! :D

I'm sorry but I have to object to "Documentation is licensed to end users". Who are "end users" specifically? It is important to drop "to end users" clause because it makes documentation non-distributable -- think of a DVD publisher or package maintainer who are not end users therefore they can't use documentation because it is not licensed to them?!?

@onlyjob End users are whoever Docker defines them to be. In this case, readers and contributors. Is there a specific set of users you are concerned specifically concerned about?

@moxiegirl, "licensed to and users" is an unnecessary restriction disregarding of your definition. Please do not add restrictions on top of the license restrictions. If it really meant "to everybody" then it should be written as such but it is better to drop that kind of restrictions entirely as it is a bad thing to have it in first place since there is always somebody who is excluded by definition (e.g. developers etc.).
IMHO this clause is almost as malicious as notorious "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil", see

• https://dzone.com/articles/jsonorg-license-literally-says
• http://tanguy.ortolo.eu/blog/article46/json-license

@onlyjob Thank you for your comments. This language is provided by our legal staff. They are tasked with ensuring the language is correct an appropriate to the task. So I'm disinclined to change it.

Obviously legal staff is mistaken on this instance. What problem they are trying to solve by restricting documentation license to "end users" only?

Libkv was just accepted to Debian but this restriction most likely will force us to ship libkv without documentation... :(

Please reconsider.

Besides I don't consider myself to be "end user" and I'm getting tired of explaining what supposed to be obvious... :(