Licensing issues #277
Comments
|
That seems something interesting to do! Anyone in the contributors would like to volunteer on making this happen? |
Copyright doesn’t work that way. Even if it did, it’d be an awful move community-wise.
That would be an option, preferably combined with the CI option below. I.e. if no license file is found, the committer/merge proposer would be asked to add a license file, with the suggestion to simply use the default one, if they don’t have any specific reason otherwise (e.g. based on some other code).
This is a good suggestion. I haven’t played with TravisCI yet, but am willing to take a stab when I find the time. All this is still treating the whole copyright and licensing question very lightly, as themes probably include code that was borrowed elsewhere and those in turn have to be properly licensed and the licenses compatible etc.; but this would indeed be an amazing great step in the right direction! |
|
@wilsonfreitas - think you could add a license for aboutwilson? |
License for simple-bootstrapAs of now it is not obvious that anyone has permission to use this theme on their website. Please consider choosing one of the open source licenses: https://choosealicense.com/ I suggest MIT license. Unless previous contributors specified the license on their works via other channels, changing a license requires agreement from each one of them. Therefore, I'm pinging all of previous contributors. Do you agree to change the license for simple-bootstrap to MIT license?Please reply in the comments. Thank you |
|
I agree to changing the license to MIT. 👍 |
|
Consider also adopting best https://reuse.software best practices to mark the code. |
I added a clarification around the term "automatically" to convey what I meant. |
This does sound better. You could also put a git hook into this, or use the DCO. |
|
I agree! |
|
Agree
…On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:29 PM smu ***@***.***> wrote:
I agree!
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#277?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAHXTLM675BKJY33AGBL3H3QKEVYZA5CNFSM4AZXOY6KYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD65UM2I#issuecomment-532366953>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAHXTLNZFNGDWLRGRM3223DQKEVYZANCNFSM4AZXOY6A>
.
--
Best,
Adam
|
|
Agree!
…On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 8:57 PM Adrian Price-Whelan ***@***.***> wrote:
@wilsonfreitas <https://github.com/wilsonfreitas> - think you could add a
license for aboutwilson?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#277 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABgrMn_3m9szEkPeO9IO4Uy98I_2BPh8ks5sfd_kgaJpZM4DN3Y8>
.
--
Wilson Freitas
http://wilsonfreitas.github.io
|
agree |
As it happened before in #6, at the moment 30 themes do not have a license file.
This would make it tricky to release a themes collection package (see e.g. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=759179 )
I'd like to suggest few alternative solutions.
The simple one would be to create a global license file at the root directory and state in the README.rst file that any theme provided without a license automatically inherits the global one. Clarification: contributors will see the default license when creating PR and agree to it. This does not apply retroactively to existing themes!
Even better, contributors could be asked to always inherit the root license and this would greatly simplify the packager's life.
Third option, having a license check script that is run as a TravisCI job every time somebody commits to the repository and fails the build if a license file is missing.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: