search

openhab / openhab-docs

This repository contains the documentation for openHAB.
https://www.openhab.org/docs/
Other
272 stars 688 forks source link

License? #794

Closed pfink closed 3 years ago

pfink commented 6 years ago

@kaikreuzer: The license of this project is missing. I guess that's not intended, right?

kaikreuzer commented 6 years ago

Do you have a good suggestion under which license to put documentation?

pfink commented 6 years ago

I think we do not have so much options as it has to be compatible with EPL 2.0 because we copy some stuff from the ESH documentation...

bgilmer77 commented 6 years ago

FWIW, I use the CC-BY-ND 4.0 license for documentation in some technical trade associations I am involved with. But we may not have that option here.

Confectrician commented 6 years ago

I think we do not have so much options

Is there an overview for the possible options available? I have found the general license faq, but its really big an di didn't find any information like this on a quick look.

kaikreuzer commented 6 years ago

because we copy some stuff from the ESH documentation...

That's a good point. So actually EPLv2 should be the only/best option then. Good thing about it is that it was designed to also cover documentation (which EPLv1 didn't).

Confectrician commented 6 years ago

Ok then EPLv2 it is. :+1: Will you add the necessary stuff yourself?

kaikreuzer commented 6 years ago

Do we need anything more than https://github.com/openhab/openhab-docs/pull/796?

Confectrician commented 6 years ago

Looks ok to me.

pfink commented 6 years ago

Is there an overview for the possible options available?

License compatibility is a quite complex topic. There is no comprehensive overview and as in many law topics, they can always be different opinions and court decisions about it. The best overview I know is this site by the GNU project. Basically my hint was a decent way of saying that we should use EPL 2.0 because we have the highest legal certainty there.

Do we need anything more than #796?

Yes, we should also ensure that all branches do have the license as well (probably some of them can be deleted as well, but I don't know).

Confectrician commented 6 years ago

I will leave this one open and take care of the other branches.

ghys commented 6 years ago

I will leave this one open and take care of the other branches.

You probably should leave the "final" branch alone though because the next merge by Jenkins will take care of it and add the file from master.

pfink commented 6 years ago

Something was wrong about #796, the top right corner from the GitHub page shows "View license" which means GitHub does not recognize it as EPL 2.0.

Confectrician commented 6 years ago

Weird. Other repos work with a LICENSE file, alltough help mentions to give it a .txt or ´.md` extension.

https://help.github.com/articles/licensing-a-repository/

Anyways i think Kai could edit the repository settings and add the License there manually.

kaikreuzer commented 6 years ago

I did exactly what is described here: https://help.github.com/articles/adding-a-license-to-a-repository/#including-an-open-source-license-in-your-repository.

The only change I did was to remove this part, which is not part of the license, but rather a template to be filled out if you use a secondary license - I thus don't think this should be kept there. Maybe this removal confuses the Github automatic license detection...

Confectrician commented 6 years ago

Did you set it up by hand now @kaikreuzer or did it just needed some time?

kaikreuzer commented 6 years ago

I didn't do a thing - so it was apparently just a matter of time.

Confectrician commented 6 years ago

I have added the license for the 3 version patch branches now.

I think most of the additional branches will get deleted on mid term.

Confectrician commented 5 years ago

@kaikreuzer have you any information about the structure branch?

It was updated 3 years ago and could be removed maybe. wdyt?

kaikreuzer commented 5 years ago

Looked very outdated indeed, I have removed it.

wborn commented 5 years ago

The only change I did was to remove this part, which is not part of the license, but rather a template to be filled out if you use a secondary license - I thus don't think this should be kept there. Maybe this removal confuses the Github automatic license detection.

Most certainly that change causes GitHub to not properly recognize the EPL-2.0 license. GitHub has no troubles to recognize the license on ESH as well as several OH repos that have a LICENSE file with the "Exhibit A" part.

wborn commented 5 years ago

According to Detecting a license GitHub uses licensee for this. The EPL-2.0 license in their repo also has the "Exhibit A" part. Based on the output posted in issues it gives a confidence for the licenses. So changing the license will lower the confidence and may cause the license to be not correctly detected. If it's common to also have EPL-2.0 licenses without the "Exhibit A" part, it's probably best to create an issue for it in that repo. Then it also needs to be fixed and GitHub needs to update that Ruby Gem. :hourglass_flowing_sand: