Could the Rate Limits post be licensed under a CC/Attribution variant?

Continuing the discussion from Rate Limits for Let's Encrypt:

It would be great to include this with clients and misc documents as-is, or slightly reformatted.


Considering the fact that they could be changed again at some point without warning, it would be best to just link there than include something that could become outdated.

1 Like

If it is CC/Attribution then there would be a required link to the source text (instead of just a suggested link + disclaimer).

The point of bundling the text, not just linking, is to allow for “offline” work.

1 Like

Certificate issuance doesn’t work offline anyway. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

You don’t need to interact with the CA to build against it’s API or integrate a client into your system. When you’re dealing with rate-limits, it has more to do with internal book-keeping and scheduling than the CA. In fact, none of the integrated tests on my rate-limit tracking and scheduling even require talking to the CA.

1 Like

I think it makes sense to cover our docs with an free license the same way we do with our source code. I’ll check in with @josh on that.

I do agree with @cool110, though: Even though we will probably license our docs freely, I’d still encourage you to link to them rather than bundle them, since they’re likely to change.

1 Like

Well the intended use is a file that reads Something like:

LetsEncrypt published rate limits at ___

ratelimits are subject to constant change

the following was accurate on ____

Ratelimits text

It just seems silly to redocument limits.

The reason for doing this is the client tracks requests to
Stay under limits.

1 Like

Since facts aren’t copyrightable anyway (despite what the NFL and MLB commissioners think), there doesn’t seem to be any need for any particular license. I don’t need (and don’t have) a license from LE to write a wiki page saying that LE currently imposes a rate limit of 20 certs/domain/week.


That is also a good point @danb35! Though I think @jvanasco is asking about copying the particular expression of facts on that rate limit page, since it makes more sense to copy directly than to rephrase.

1 Like

Exactly. danb35 is correct, the facts aren't copyrightable... but the prose describing the ratelimits is.

It would fall under fair-use to cite a paragraph as-is, and one could argue that the usage in my context is fair use as well. However, I'm still talking about copy/pasting the entirety of a post as-is... so I'd rather have explicit permission.

The reason why I brought up the CC/Attribution is because that essentially requires a link back to the documentation and (depending on the license) doesn't allow for changes to the text.

1 Like

Josh has updated the description page for the Documentation category to indicate a CC license: About the Documentation category

1 Like

Thanks! This is great!

FYI, if you end up doing packages of the client for debian/unbuntu you should not include any docs. and link back to them or provide a separate package/repo debian doesn’t consider most of the CC licenses free because of the non-commerical or attribution requirements. a lot of packages get held up or threatened for removal from that.


The client docs are mainly stored in the client repo, and so are covered by the Apache license there.

1 Like

I think we should note that all forum content is already licensed as CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0:

1 Like