Closed akhmerov closed 2 years ago
Thank you for your contribution. I got you said about these minor licensing aspects, and you may have a point.
I have, however, a question about form: in the real world, repositories are generally managed by the person(s) who wrote them. Most issues are written in a language that assumes this, as this creates direct rapport and favors speedy solutions. They are also the ones who are most likely to read issues and answer them, and it is reasonable to assume this. Then why is your post written with my name repeatedly mentioned as a third party?
I have, however, a question about form: in the real world, repositories are generally managed by the person(s) who wrote them.
Absolutely: copyright does not imply authority in decision making. As I wrote, this is a technical point and it's about the lack of explicit copyright transfer.
Then why is your post written with my name repeatedly mentioned as a third party?
Very sorry for giving a wrong/odd impression with this formulation. I used your name when I was discussing how it appears or would appear in the repo and it felt ambiguous to use "you" instead. I realize that you are the person who will read it, and I wasn't addressing anyone else really.
Thanks a lot. That being out of the way, I will have a look at this issue.
Not changing the copyleft for the documentation for the moment.
The licensing issues below are largely irrelevant, however I would like to bring those up for consideration.
Firstly, the repository license has an outdated copyright year (2018) and lists @fralau as the only copyright holder. I don't think it's technically possible because copyright assignment has to happen explicitly, and the 14 contributors of the PRs did not assign the copyright.
To fix this I recommend to keep copyright with the contributors and list "mkdocs_macros plugin contributors" as the copyright holder. Of course @fralau deserves all the credit, however this is easier to address by e.g. creating
AUTHORS.md
that would state that the library was developed mainly by @fralau (it doesn't actually need to list anyone else explicitly, unless the contributions are important).Furthermore, the documentation has a CC-BY-SA license. This may create confusion (it was my "huh" moment when I saw this in the footer of the docs), while, to the best of my knowledge, it does not serve a specific goal. I recommend to change the docs license to MIT as well, in line with the main repo license.