License for Bootstrap examples isn't clear

[carlosmintfan]

Discussed in https://github.com/orgs/twbs/discussions/40609

^{Originally posted by **carlosmintfan** July 6, 2024} Bootstrap code is licensed MIT, docs are Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Why even make that difference as both basically do the same – require attribution – although the MIT license is much shorter and better? But the code from the docs is also CC, not MIT, like the color modes toggle js. But what about the https://getbootstrap.com/docs/5.3/examples/dashboard/dashboard.css, for example? Is it MIT or CC?

[carlosmintfan]

Too bad that people like you, building amazing software, are going against the spirit of the MIT license by licensing the docs under a different license although MIT explicitly states associated documentation files part of the software.

Now please tell me, as you're even licensing the JS code of the Color modes toggler under CC BY instead of MIT: I want to bundle it together with my other JS and I did a minor modification to it: I replaced the IIFE by an exported ESM function. Now the MIT license would just require me to leave a short comment there above, but CC is so oh...I have to state if modifications were made and blah blah blah...and software source code under CC! Do I have to serve my modified source code or is it okay to just leave a comment telling "Color modes toggler for Bootstrap's docs with minor modifications" in my minified build asset?? What's the reason for making a great, permissive- and SHORT-licensed project but the docs and some useful code used in the docs under a long license with termination and all that garbage??

[mdo]

Our docs are ours, the source code of the project is MIT. The docs being CC isn't as huge of a deal as you're making it—the license is pretty clear and flexible. Do whatever you want, but give credit (usually by including the license information or a source code comment).

Also, the original licensing decisions were made 13 years ago when the project was created. Instead of writing snarky comments to strangers on the internet, just ask an open question and await a reply :).

All that to say, maybe we can change it in the future, but usually that's a massive pain in the butt and I don't see an immediate value to it as maintainer.

[carlosmintfan]

Hmm @mdo, my last comment seems to have been that snarky it filled out your brain so you couldn't think of anything else and it made you miss the point :) :) :) Cause the original (still existing) problem is that it is not clear what the license for the bootstrap examples css is, as it doesn't contain a license header.

[mdo]

If it's in the docs, it's CC unless otherwise stated. Examples are part of the docs.

[carlosmintfan]

And what made you use CC for that much code, although MIT is much better suited for code?!

[carlosmintfan]

"Code is MIT, docs CC", yeah, but code in docs? And it's not really in docs...well, it's on your website, yeah...

[carlosmintfan]

And the real bootstrap code can also be downloaded on the docs site...and it is MIT, while the examples ZIP is CC? Hmmmmmmmm...

[carlosmintfan]

But https://github.com/twbs/examples is under MIT! Although these are a different type of examples than the snippets like https://getbootstrap.com/docs/5.3/examples/sidebars/ Please overthink this. Could @fat and @julien-deramond also share their opinion?

[carlosmintfan]

https://creativecommons.org/faq/

We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses listed as free by the Free Software Foundation and listed as “open source” by the Open Source Initiative.

Unlike software-specific licenses, CC licenses do not contain specific terms about the distribution of source code, which is often important to ensuring the free reuse and modifiability of software.

var_dump((new Action("license color modes toggler and example code under CC BY 3.0"))->getSense())

-> NULL

var_dump((new Action("license color modes toggler and example code under CC BY 3.0"))->makesSense())

-> bool (false)

If you say:

Are you a fool? Of course it makes sense. There are important decisions behind the wall for why we want the color modes toggler to be licensed under a CC license. Can't you think?

No. I can't think except for some stupid conspiracy theories like:

var_dump((new Action("license color modes toggler and example code under CC BY 3.0"))->getHypotheticalSense())

-> string (blah) "We want to cheat the user, be unclear by design and terminate his rights if he violates the license. Therefore, we decided to at least license the color modes toggler under a CC license instead of MIT." Which is even more absurd, right? Really, guys. Really. 😁

[carlosmintfan]

[julien-deramond]

@julien-deramond also share their opinion?

My opinion is that we have to find spare time to tackle (at the time of the writing) 432 issues and 142 PRs and start to develop a massive version 6.

Some elements in your point are valid, but there's a way to communicate with the community. We got your point, there's no need to comment this issue several times, quote an AI, etc.

The answer provided by mdo is the final answer right now:

[...] maybe we can change it in the future, but usually that's a massive pain in the butt and I don't see an immediate value to it as maintainer.

So let's think about it in the future to improve that situation if possible :)

In the meantime:

If it's in the docs, it's CC unless otherwise stated. Examples are part of the docs.

[carlosmintfan]

So these snippet examples are a part of the docs but the other starter kits are MIT? How stupid.

[carlosmintfan]

But okay, leave your time. The examples should actually be public domain.

[carlosmintfan]

Use your time for what is most important in your opinion, but I hope one more comment won't trouble you. So, there's https://getbootstrap.com/docs/5.3/about/license. It only talks about the MIT license. It's not clear that the examples are under a CC license. The examples itself don't contain copyright and license comments in HTML and neither in CSS. So there are these amazing ready-to-copy-and-paste examples. In the past, I've simply copied the HTML and CSS to my projects and were ready to go. Now, I'm thinking more about these license stuff. I saw it isn't clear which license was used for them. And you tell me that these are CC, which is completely arbitrary as the other type of examples at https://github.com/twbs/examples is not considered "part of the docs and therefore CC" but is explicitly licensed MIT. So, you want that after I copy the example code to my project, that I add an HTML comment like <!-- Adapted from https://getbootstrap.com/docs/5.3/examples/sidebars, licensed https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ -->? You didn't explain this nowhere, not in the license FAQ, not on the examples overview. You just link to the CC license on GitHub and in the footer of your docs and want me to do this work. I'm just wondering about the percentage of the users of your examples that add a comment like this.