search

chaoss / website

(Some of the) Content of http://chaoss.community website.
MIT License
34 stars 84 forks source link

Licensing docs on the website #895

Closed RichardLitt closed 1 week ago

RichardLitt commented 2 months ago

As discussed in the CHAOSS WG today, it would be great to license the practitioner guides, as accessed through the website, with the MIT license. Right now, the footer makes everything appear to be © the Linux Foundation, and there's no mention that the docs are all MIT licensed.

Ideally, this would be a change in the footer, I think. Ping @germonprez @geekygirldawn @ElizabethN

geekygirldawn commented 2 months ago

I've moved this to the website repo, since we should fix the footer for all content on the website, not just the guides.

geekygirldawn commented 3 weeks ago

@ElizabethN I wanted to check in on this issue to see if I can help unblock this? It would be amazing if we could get this change made before I talk about the guides at FOSSY :)

ElizabethN commented 3 weeks ago

Hey @geekygirldawn! I put something in slack a while back, but I don't think anyone replied definitively. Is the footer something I can just change? Obviously I'm happy to do it, it's just that IANAL and I don't know if that is ok. I looked at a few other LF projects and the footers all basically say the same thing as ours. It seems like it's a directive of the LF. I don't wanna over-complicate anything. But you know me, I'm a rule follower and I don't want to cause any issues 😅.

Maybe @klumb knows, since he was involved in the first iteration of the CHAOSS site. @klumb do you remember if the LF was adamant about the footer on the site? Do you know if we can change it?

geekygirldawn commented 2 weeks ago

We should definitely get LF approval for a change to the footer. I think we can probably make the case that we're different than most projects because people need to reuse our metrics, guides, and other resources. Having them in the repo as MIT licensed and then having something else in the webpage footer is likely to cause confusion.

Maybe talk to Kate? I think she's our primary contact at the LF and would know who to ask?

ElizabethN commented 1 week ago

After several more discussions about this, we have added a revised footer to the Practitioner Guides clarifying the license under which they have been released.

I'm going to close this issue, but @RichardLitt if this is something you'd like to continue to discuss or if you feel like there is still some ambiguity, by all means, feel free to reopen this! ✨

RichardLitt commented 1 week ago

I trust you. I just wanted to raise it initially - thanks for doing the hard work after I did that!