search

yesodweb / yesodweb.com-content

Content for the www.yesodweb.com site
http://www.yesodweb.com/
Other
67 stars 112 forks source link

License covers yesodweb.com-content as well? #71

Closed wolftune closed 10 years ago

wolftune commented 10 years ago

As this is a separate repository within yesodweb (yesodweb.com-content is separate from yesodweb.com here at GH), it isn't absolutely clear that the license which states that it otherwise covers documentation and source is applicable here. It would be nice to have a license file here making this clear (or clarifying what license is used for the content part, if different of course, I certainly hope there's no question that documentation is under a free/open license)

snoyberg commented 10 years ago

I don't think I ever officially licensed the content, though it is intended to be free/open source. Give me a day or two to decide which license to release it under. I typically use MIT for all of my code, but have heard that documentation shouldn't necessarily use MIT. (If you have any suggestions, let me know, I'm definitely open to input.)

wolftune commented 10 years ago

Although some people use GFDL still, Creative Commons has become the de facto standard (and for good reason) for non-code works. If you go that route, the options are CC0 (which is not a license but is a public domain waiver, and there's no need for the warranty disclaimers here like there is for code, so it's safe), CC-BY (is still a license, requires attribution unlike MIT), and CC-BY-SA (this is basically copyleft, and it's the license used by Wikipedia alongside the GFDL). For the most part, MIT and other permissive software licenses are still compatible but kind of inappropriate as it will require everyone to use the unneeded MIT warranty disclaimer for any derivatives. I think CC0, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA are all fine and probably the best options, choice depends on whether you want to retain copyright and whether you want to be permissive or copyleft.

Do note that CC offers non-commercial (NC) restriction, and that is proprietary, non-free, and incompatible with Wikipedia and others. It's an unfortunate license that shouldn't exist. Likewise, the no-derivatives (ND) license option is obviously non-free (and it's a shame and arguably very hypocriticial that Richard Stallman uses ND term for his writings).

Hope that's clear enough. Cheers!

snoyberg commented 10 years ago

I've added a LICENSE file. Mind looking it over and making sure it addresses your concerns?

wolftune commented 10 years ago

Sure, that dual-licensing seems fine. Dual-licensing is more of a problem if one or both licenses are copyleft, because that could mean that derivatives end up incompatible. With permissive licenses like these, the dual license causes no particular problems (any incompatibility would only happen if others change the license for derivatives, which permissive licenses allow whether you did a single or dual).

Only final request: put a note about the licenses on the website itself.

Thanks!

snoyberg commented 10 years ago

Good idea, done.

wolftune commented 10 years ago

Great!

wolftune commented 10 years ago

Quick note: The name on the website for the license, I just realized it is incorrect. The site says "Create Commons" but the license is "Creative Commons". The license file is already correct in that. Also, since this original issue, CC updated their licenses for much better international application and universality. I suggest listing the updated v.4 licenses. Ideally, the mention you should link directly here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ and now it is "International" so there's no need to reference the U.S. version or anything like with v.3.

snoyberg commented 10 years ago

Thanks for the recommendation, I've updated the relevant references.