On the other hand, if the Apache license that applies to all code and samples does not apply to the contents, then each author owns their own content directly.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that (at least in the country in which I reside) content is copyrighted by default, and the author owns that copyright. Additional rights must be granted by the author. If we want to change the license, we need the approval of the authors so far -
https://github.com/gwtproject/gwt-site/graphs/contributors. Anyone who doesn't approve would need to have their content removed, if we decide to change.
Are we sufficiently clear that all content is Apache licensed, including the website documentation? Is there a good reason to consider a different license instead? Should we seek confirmation from any authors of substantial amounts of content that their content falls under the license we choose?
My suggestion is to clarify that all content is under the Apache License, and see a confirmation from any author who wrote more than ~5 lines of content. If we think we are already clear that all content is under that license, then we should state that in an up front way, such as setting the "license" metadata of the gwt-site repo, and adding a LICENSE file.
Thoughts, suggestions, pointers to how other projects have handled this?