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 initial license info #1

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Oct 27, 2018

Conversation

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@ddbeck
Collaborator

ddbeck commented Oct 4, 2018

This PR adds some text about licensing to the README and the text of the CC0 license. I had two ideas here:

First, we need to properly attribute the MDN prose content with CC-BY-SA. I thought it would be good to do that right away, even though there isn't any in the repo yet.

Second, I thought it would be nice to have the flexibility of less restrictive terms on the source code, if not the content, in case we ever (or, let's be real, when we) need to reorganize this stuff into other repos. To that end, I added the CC0 text to the README and LICENSE files. The files that ultimately contain wiki prose (and the resulting npm package) will necessarily have more restrictive terms. But there's nothing stopping us from being more permissive with the stuff that's not derived from CC-BY-SA content, so that's what I aimed to do.

@wbamberg, would you take a look at this? I wasn't able to assign you as a reviewer, I think because you have not participated on the repo yet.

@wbamberg

This comment has been minimized.

Member

wbamberg commented Oct 4, 2018

I think it's a good idea to have this dual licensing. I think the README could be more explicit about which parts of this repo are "Prose from MDN" though. Should we have a "prose" (or something) directory containing that content, and reference that from the README? Should we then include the CC-BY-SA license file in the root of that directory?

@ddbeck

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

ddbeck commented Oct 5, 2018

I agree that we should be more explicit, though I wrote this as a bit of a placeholder.

Should we have a "prose" (or something) directory containing that content, and reference that from the README? Should we then include the CC-BY-SA license file in the root of that directory?

For this PR, I wasn't sure what our repo layout would be, so I avoided being overly specific. Also I was thinking that since we intend to generate files from the wiki, we'd probably put some comments at the top of each of the generated files specifying the applicable license (and advising against modifying the files directly).

As for your suggested approach, I'm not sure. Are we going to mirror BCD's structure directly (e.g., starting with /css/properties/some-name.json or /css/properties.json)? That might complicate matters. If we nested them down a layer, (e.g., /descriptions/css/properties/some-name.json) then it would probably work fine.

@wbamberg

This comment has been minimized.

Member

wbamberg commented Oct 26, 2018

I agree that we should be more explicit, though I wrote this as a bit of a placeholder.

Should we have a "prose" (or something) directory containing that content, and reference that from the README? Should we then include the CC-BY-SA license file in the root of that directory?

For this PR, I wasn't sure what our repo layout would be, so I avoided being overly specific. Also I was thinking that since we intend to generate files from the wiki, we'd probably put some comments at the top of each of the generated files specifying the applicable license (and advising against modifying the files directly).

This could make sense, except that comments aren't allowed in JSON, so if the generated file is a JSON file containing a collection of short descriptions then this will not work.

As for your suggested approach, I'm not sure. Are we going to mirror BCD's structure directly (e.g., starting with /css/properties/some-name.json or /css/properties.json)? That might complicate matters. If we nested them down a layer, (e.g., /descriptions/css/properties/some-name.json) then it would probably work fine.

I like nesting them down a layer, and "descriptions" sounds good.

I spoke to @atopal about licensing, and he seemed to be OK with the dual-licensing approach. I think in any event, it's not so hard to change things while it's just a couple of people contributing, and it's easier to go from CC0 to CC-BY-SA than the other way round.

@atopal

This comment has been minimized.

Member

atopal commented Oct 27, 2018

I spoke to @atopal about licensing, and he seemed to be OK with the dual-licensing approach. I think in any event, it's not so hard to change things while it's just a couple of people contributing, and it's easier to go from CC0 to CC-BY-SA than the other way round.

+1

@ddbeck

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

ddbeck commented Oct 27, 2018

This could make sense, except that comments aren't allowed in JSON

I am constantly forgetting this. Good point.

I like nesting them down a layer, and "descriptions" sounds good.

OK, great. I'll add a placeholder file to create the directory and update the README accordingly.

Thank you both, @atopal and @wbamberg for addressing the licensing question!

@ddbeck ddbeck requested a review from wbamberg Oct 27, 2018

@wbamberg

Looks great @ddbeck !

@wbamberg wbamberg merged commit 14a8f61 into master Oct 27, 2018

@ddbeck ddbeck deleted the license-info branch Nov 24, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment