search

Freenove / Freenove_Big_Hexapod_Robot_Kit_for_Raspberry_Pi

Apply to FNK0052
Other
120 stars 88 forks source link

Unclear software licensing #3

Open simoninns opened 2 years ago

simoninns commented 2 years ago

The documentation states that the project is 'open-source', however CC licensing is for content not software as per creative commons own FAQ: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software

If the only applied license is CC (which is not by definition an open-source license for the code) - can you clarify what license is applied for the open-source code advertised?

Open-source is means using an OSI compliant license (otherwise the code is published, but it's not open-source) and should therefore be a license named on the following page:

https://opensource.org/licenses/

Thanks in advance!

DenzelChen commented 2 years ago

This means you can use them on your own derived works, in part or completely. But NOT for the purpose of commercial use. You can find a copy of the license in this repository.

Freenove brand and logo are copyright of Freenove Creative Technology Co., Ltd. Can't be used without formal permission.

simoninns commented 2 years ago

ok, that I read from the docs, but as per my issue statement - a CC license is for content not for code. If you apply it to code it's not open-source as that requires an OSI complaint license such as GPL or MIT

So let me rephrase - do you have any intention of applying an open-source license to the code in order to align the code with your marketing which states the project is "open source"? - because currently it is not open-source as the licensing on the code is CC.

DenzelChen commented 2 years ago

Thank you for your feedback. I guess we need to use this license for the code. https://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0

simoninns commented 2 years ago

You are welcome to use any OSI approved license; it's your code and therefore your choice. My point is that, if you state it's open-source, then it should be clear how it's licensed :) . The CC license is fine for content (such as documentation and physical design files (CAD, STL and the like).

For the code Apache-2.0 is a good choice (as are all of the OSI approved licenses); if you decide on that then you should look at the advice from the license description though and clearly mark your git repo using the LICENSE file at the top-level:

"APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work"

It's at the bottom of the page you linked. For your own benefit (and that of your customers) - it should be clearly stated what applies. There's also advice from github on best-practice:

https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository

Thanks for taking the time to look into this and for providing more clarity.