You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
However, I find it problematic to share all the code examples in the documentation under the same license.
Every time somebody starts using Flexmock and reads the docs, copy pasting the examples and adapting them, they are effectively redistributing parts of Flexmock and thus, they need to add a copyright notice, list of conditions and a disclaimer (basically the whole LICENSE content). This is especially problematic if someone is copy pasting the examples to learning materials, such as presentations etc. For somebody who deals with licenses a lot, this is not a problem. But for a beginner, this might be rocket science.
A also dare to guess nobody is doing it anyway.
I belive the solution to this problem is to explicitly relicense the code examples/snippets to another license that does not have such problems. I recommend (and vote for) CC0. I believe that Public Domain is the only kind of licensing that makes sense on code examples in documentation and learning materials.
The copyright footer in the docs could read (something like):
Hi, thanks for opening this issue. I have no problem whatsoever with doing this and I agree with the choice of CC0. I've been very short on time lately, so unfortunately I won't be able to do much. If you're willing to do the legwork and send a PR that adds the copyright footer, I'll review and merge.
I have to say I don't remember exactly, but I think the original maintainer first had the docs in the repo, then moved them to wiki, then to GH pages and then I moved those back to the repo. The history in [1] seems to support this, but I really can't tell.
Flexmock is licensed with BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License. The license is perfect and thanks for that.
However, I find it problematic to share all the code examples in the documentation under the same license.
Every time somebody starts using Flexmock and reads the docs, copy pasting the examples and adapting them, they are effectively redistributing parts of Flexmock and thus, they need to add a copyright notice, list of conditions and a disclaimer (basically the whole LICENSE content). This is especially problematic if someone is copy pasting the examples to learning materials, such as presentations etc. For somebody who deals with licenses a lot, this is not a problem. But for a beginner, this might be rocket science.
A also dare to guess nobody is doing it anyway.
I belive the solution to this problem is to explicitly relicense the code examples/snippets to another license that does not have such problems. I recommend (and vote for) CC0. I believe that Public Domain is the only kind of licensing that makes sense on code examples in documentation and learning materials.
The copyright footer in the docs could read (something like):
I realize relicensing stuff is not easy. You would need to ask permission from everybody who ever contributed to the examples. I'm willing to help.
What are you opinions on this matter?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: