LICENSE file in docs repo is different from page footer.

[isaacvetter]

The LICENSE file in the repo that contains the specification is Apache 2.0; but the footer of the specification site says that the content is licensed under Creative Commons 4.0 Attribution International.

I believe that the intent is that the specification's content is licensed under CC4, and the apache LICENSE file is a holdover / bug.

Is this correct? If so, we should really update the LICENSE file to match the footer.

[kpshek]

This is correct and intentional. From our README.md:

All Markdown content in this repository is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Unless otherwise noted, the contents of this repository are licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at

When you apply the Apache 2.0 License, you copy this LICENSE file into your project (per Apache's guidance here). I realize that GitHub picks up this file and assumes the whole project falls under that license; however, that's just because GitHub doesn't handle projects with content under multiple licenses.

The Apache 2.0 License is for code -- not documentation/spec. That's where Creative Commons license comes in and why it is in the footer of our documentation/spec pages.

Does that help clarify things? Do we need to make that more clear in the README.md for this project?