Open olafklingt opened 1 year ago
An alternative is to note the license per article in case it doesn't match. This would make a lot of things easier, especially for Nixpkgs and NixOS manuals, which have a lot of authors.
@domenkozar does anything speak against that?
This issue has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/2023-03-21-documentation-team-meeting-notes-34/26619/1
I think ideally we'd re-license to make things easier. Hopefully CC-BY-SA is not controversial :)
Discussed in the Nix documentation team meeting:
Suggestion by @infinisil: when moving a piece of documentation in to the CC realm, ping all the authors and wait for their public approval to relicense.
We need instructions/guidance how to get author information so it's not too much friction for those who attempt the migration.
@asymmetric: We don't have to be blocked on relicesing if we import under the existing license. Can change the license later down the road.
This issue has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/2023-04-11-documentation-team-meeting-notes-40/27261/1
We can also prepend each non-CC file with its MIT license, in a comment. It's very short.
For me this is blocked by nix.dev becoming official, both in theory and in practice (i.e. looks, content)
If migrating content, with permission we still have to track contributors by content, what is the value of license migration?
I mean, options:
Moving tutorials out of the reference manuals requires relicensing them from nixpkgs' MIT to this repo's CC-BY-SA.
This needs agreement by all authors of the materials in question.
Here are collections of articles we may want to extract and add to nix.dev:
Here is a list of similar efforts in the past:
TODO @asymmetric