The subtitle of the project is An open source collection of Design Principles and methods., but looking at the contributing page there is no suggestions, advise or similar regarding which open source license to use when posting original content. Similarly, links to companies' content don't show a specified license, making them not open. By default, any personal/company posts are copyrighted unless specified otherwise [1]. This feels against the point of the spirit shared by the page. As it stands, users may misunderstand that all links appearing on the site are under an open license. Similarly, contributors or original content may mistakenly assume by sharing a link of their post it makes the content open as well.
A brief intro to the licenses the team/maintainer is comfortable could close this gap. Also, links to sites that could help someone new in open source to choose the license for them. [2] Or links for people to learn more about them in general, which could in turn help them choose one for their work that will be shared here. [3]
CreativeCommons licenses are popular as well, and although not open, may also maintain the spirit of collaboration of the site. [4]
Finally, if an open license is not a requirement, perhaps there's a way to phrase the association with open source that makes clear the expectations and assumptions of the site/maintainer for the users/contributors.
The subtitle of the project is
An open source collection of Design Principles and methods., but looking at the contributing page there is no suggestions, advise or similar regarding which open source license to use when posting original content. Similarly, links to companies' content don't show a specified license, making them not open. By default, any personal/company posts are copyrighted unless specified otherwise [1]. This feels against the point of the spirit shared by the page. As it stands, users may misunderstand that all links appearing on the site are under an open license. Similarly, contributors or original content may mistakenly assume by sharing a link of their post it makes the content open as well.A brief intro to the licenses the team/maintainer is comfortable could close this gap. Also, links to sites that could help someone new in open source to choose the license for them. [2] Or links for people to learn more about them in general, which could in turn help them choose one for their work that will be shared here. [3]
CreativeCommons licenses are popular as well, and although not open, may also maintain the spirit of collaboration of the site. [4]
Finally, if an open license is not a requirement, perhaps there's a way to phrase the association with open source that makes clear the expectations and assumptions of the site/maintainer for the users/contributors.
[1] https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/ [2] https://choosealicense.com/ [3] https://fossbytes.com/open-sources-license-type/ [4] https://creativecommons.org/choose/