Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add a paragraph about compatible licenses #461

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Feb 28, 2020
Merged

Add a paragraph about compatible licenses #461

merged 2 commits into from Feb 28, 2020

Conversation

@ttoine
Copy link
Contributor

ttoine commented Feb 18, 2020

next step should be to add a paragraph about technical requirements

@matks
matks approved these changes Feb 18, 2020
@Quetzacoalt91

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

Quetzacoalt91 commented Feb 18, 2020

Hi @ttoine,

There is a list of accepted licenses in https://devdocs.prestashop.com/1.7/modules/sell/techvalidation-checklist/#license-is-compatible. To avoid duplicated / obsolete content, is there anything to update on the other page?

@ttoine

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

ttoine commented Feb 19, 2020

Good point, thanks.

You can add Apache to the list on this page, and remove OSL from the list on the "module page". Currently, modules must be in AFL, not in OSL. And while this is possible to add AFL code in OSL, the opposite is not really possible.
Also note that this list is important for native modules, but also for third party modules made available on Addons

I will add CC licenses for the artwork stuff in the "contributing guidelines" page, this is missing.

Copy link
Contributor

PierreRambaud left a comment

duplicate content

@ttoine

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

ttoine commented Feb 19, 2020

I have added a few other licenses, regarding code and artwork.
@Quetzacoalt91 I think that might be interesting.

@PierreRambaud what should be removed ? the legal compliance of the core, and of a module is not exactly the same (at least, OSL code is not really possible in modules)

- Artistic
- Unlicense

In general, public domain is not acceptable, as it doesn't exist in all juridictions or countries.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@eternoendless

eternoendless Feb 19, 2020

Member

Are you certain about this? We are currently using these flags for example, which don't specify one of the aforementioned licenses: http://www.famfamfam.com/lab/icons/flags/

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@ttoine

ttoine Feb 19, 2020

Author Contributor

certain about what ? artistic / unlicense? or public domain? or both?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@ttoine

ttoine Feb 19, 2020

Author Contributor

I checked famfamfam icons pack. There is a readme that give more information:
"These icons are public domain, and as such are free for any use (attribution appreciated but not required)"

I guess that thanks to the small additional information in the readme, we are safe. But this is very light.

However, in general, it would be better if this kind of dependency could be in CC-0, as this license includes a workaround for countries where public domain does not exist.

If we use a set of icons (e.g material) that includes flags, with a good license, maybe we should use them instead.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@ttoine

ttoine Feb 19, 2020

Author Contributor

Additional information: just keep in mind that open source licenses are used to give right to the users and protect them when they use the software (use, study, modify, redistribute)

If there is nothing explained in a package regarding the protection of users and what they can do and not do, then usually, both FSF and OSI recommendation is to avoid it.

@eternoendless eternoendless changed the title adding a paragraph about compatible licenses Add a paragraph about compatible licenses Feb 27, 2020
@PierreRambaud PierreRambaud merged commit 98b4b42 into master Feb 28, 2020
2 checks passed
2 checks passed
Travis CI - Branch Build Passed
Details
Travis CI - Pull Request Build Passed
Details
@PierreRambaud

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

PierreRambaud commented Feb 28, 2020

Thanks @ttoine

@PierreRambaud PierreRambaud deleted the ttoine-licenses branch Feb 28, 2020
@ttoine

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

ttoine commented Feb 28, 2020

yw :-)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.