Licence picker when creating new repositories points to Choose a License #1214

New Issue

Open

opened 2023-09-13 15:37:50 +00:00 by xfix · 11 comments

xfix commented 2023-09-13 15:37:50 +00:00

Copy Link

Licence picker when creating new repositories (https://codeberg.org/repo/create) points to https://choosealicense.com/. This website is maintained by GitHub, and as such has an inherent bias towards the interests of Microsoft. For Codeberg, I think it makes sense to point to https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/ instead.

<!-- NOTE: If you wish to report a security issue, please send an email to contact@codeberg.org (for Forgejo, see: https://forgejo.org/.well-known/security.txt) instead. Thank you. Welcome to the Codeberg Community Tracker. This is the place central for bug reports, feature requests and feedback. If you are not sure whether you should use trackers of other Codeberg Projects, then you should use this one. Please keep the following in mind: - Please check https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues or https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo to confirm that your issue hasn't already been reported. Codeberg uses Forgejo (referred to as the "upstream"), which is based on Gitea. - This is *not* a customer support hotline. We are volunteers with limited time and resources, and we consider you, the reporter, to be one as well. Please maintain a courteous and respectful tone, and provide as much information as possible, so that we can work together. - We may take a while with resolving your issue. Your work is still important, even if we cannot acknowledge it directly. Thank you for reporting your findings and giving feedback on Codeberg. ## FAQ ### What happens after I open an issue? Separate contributors will use your issue to communicate with each other. It will also be used to provide updates. There is a decent chance that we will ask you for additional feedback or information. ### sing_up: I noticed a typo in the URL of the registration page. This is an intentional, temporary, surprisingly effective change that helps us against spam. Nice catch! ### I want to contribute to Codeberg! That's awesome, thank you! Take a look at https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Projects and this tracker, we have a variety of both technical and non-technical tasks that we need help with. --> Licence picker when creating new repositories (https://codeberg.org/repo/create) points to https://choosealicense.com/. This website is maintained by GitHub, and as such has an inherent bias towards the interests of Microsoft. For Codeberg, I think it makes sense to point to https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/ instead.

👍 7 👎 1

xfix changed title from License picker when creating new repositories points to Choose a License. to License picker when creating new repositories points to Choose a License 2023-09-13 15:37:56 +00:00

xfix changed title from License picker when creating new repositories points to Choose a License to Licence picker when creating new repositories points to Choose a License 2023-09-13 15:39:49 +00:00

sthagen commented 2023-09-13 16:43:34 +00:00

Copy Link

To me, both sites are biased as they try to remain silent on the GPL-2.0-only alternative.
GPLv3 is a completely different beast than GPL-2.0-only and the latter is in use by prominent projects we all rely on and some of these projects did stick with GPL-2.0-only because of the scope changes in GPL-3.0-only and presumably also in GPL-3.0-or-later.

The Codeberg page to me provides a hard to follow textual flow of decisions.
Thanks for pointing me to that in part pamphlet-like text (my perception).
I have a hard time believing that the following sentence in there shall help readers but instead looks like a bizarre indoctrination attempt:

Do you want to be able to sue users of your code for patent infringement implemented in the code?

In my experience, enterprises love the Apache-2.0 license and many legal departments have already analyzed that license.
Thus choosing that license makes it easier for employees to receive permission to participate in such projects.

But, reducing the benefit of the MIT license to when wanting to be able to sue users over patent issues is IMO misleading.

To me, both sites are biased as they try to remain silent on the `GPL-2.0-only` alternative. GPLv3 is a completely different beast than `GPL-2.0-only` and the latter is in use by [prominent projects we all rely on](https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/license-rules.html) and some of these projects did stick with `GPL-2.0-only` because of the scope changes in `GPL-3.0-only` and presumably also in `GPL-3.0-or-later`. The Codeberg page to me provides a hard to follow textual flow of decisions. Thanks for pointing me to that in part pamphlet-like text (my perception). I have a hard time believing that the following sentence in there shall help readers but instead looks like a bizarre indoctrination attempt: > Do you want to be able to sue users of your code for patent infringement implemented in the code? In my experience, enterprises love the `Apache-2.0` license and many legal departments have already analyzed that license. Thus choosing that license makes it easier for employees to receive permission to participate in such projects. But, reducing the benefit of the `MIT` license to when wanting to be able to sue users over patent issues is IMO misleading.

👍 1

n0toose added the

docs

label 2023-09-13 17:59:54 +00:00

Andre601 commented 2023-09-14 16:00:03 +00:00

Contributor

Copy Link

This website is maintained by GitHub, and as such has an inherent bias towards the interests of Microsoft

I fail to see where you get this from.
Sure, the site is managed by GitHub (Ignoring the outside contributions on that matter), but does that automatically proof your claim?

If you can, share actual, undeniable proof that this site really promotes Licenses and alike that cater towards GitHub and Microsoft here.

I for my part have the benefit of doubt here and assume that choosealicense is neutral on the topic of licenses here.
If you REALLY want to offer an alternative, then https://opensource.org should be promoted as they are pretty much the de-facto place that defines what is and isn't an OS license... After all is a requirement for choosealicense to have it listed as a valid OS license on opensource.org or alike.

Either way, I don't think that choosealicense is doing anything bad or harmful here.

> This website is maintained by GitHub, and as such has an inherent bias towards the interests of Microsoft I fail to see where you get this from. Sure, the site is managed by GitHub (Ignoring the outside contributions on that matter), but does that automatically proof your claim? If you can, share actual, undeniable proof that this site really promotes Licenses and alike that cater towards GitHub and Microsoft here. I for my part have the benefit of doubt here and assume that choosealicense is neutral on the topic of licenses here. If you REALLY want to offer an alternative, then https://opensource.org should be promoted as they are pretty much the de-facto place that defines what is and isn't an OS license... After all is a requirement for choosealicense to have it listed as a valid OS license on opensource.org or alike. Either way, I don't think that choosealicense is doing anything bad or harmful here.

👎 1

xfix commented 2023-09-14 16:16:52 +00:00

Author

Copy Link

This website is maintained by GitHub, and as such has an inherent bias towards the interests of Microsoft

I fail to see where you get this from.
Sure, the site is managed by GitHub (Ignoring the outside contributions on that matter), but does that automatically proof your claim?

If you can, share actual, undeniable proof that this site really promotes Licenses and alike that cater towards GitHub and Microsoft here.

I for my part have the benefit of doubt here and assume that choosealicense is neutral on the topic of licenses here.
If you REALLY want to offer an alternative, then https://opensource.org should be promoted as they are pretty much the de-facto place that defines what is and isn't an OS license... After all is a requirement for choosealicense to have it listed as a valid OS license on opensource.org or alike.

Either way, I don't think that choosealicense is doing anything bad or harmful here.

The justification is already written on https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/#conflict-of-interests.

> > This website is maintained by GitHub, and as such has an inherent bias towards the interests of Microsoft > > I fail to see where you get this from. > Sure, the site is managed by GitHub (Ignoring the outside contributions on that matter), but does that automatically proof your claim? > > If you can, share actual, undeniable proof that this site really promotes Licenses and alike that cater towards GitHub and Microsoft here. > > I for my part have the benefit of doubt here and assume that choosealicense is neutral on the topic of licenses here. > If you REALLY want to offer an alternative, then https://opensource.org should be promoted as they are pretty much the de-facto place that defines what is and isn't an OS license... After all is a requirement for choosealicense to have it listed as a valid OS license on opensource.org or alike. > > Either way, I don't think that choosealicense is doing anything bad or harmful here. The justification is already written on https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/#conflict-of-interests.

Andre601 commented 2023-09-14 16:25:09 +00:00

Contributor

Copy Link

The justification is already written on https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/#conflict-of-interests.

I hardly call this a justification nor a objective view on this.

Looking at the frontpage, I recall it being like this for years... even before MS bought GitHub (I can be wrong obviously).

Further would I say that this section is even more biased by giving claims without substantial proof.
Like, were there attempts of adding the missing info which were denied?

>The justification is already written on https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/#conflict-of-interests. I hardly call this a justification nor a objective view on this. Looking at the frontpage, I recall it being like this for years... even before MS bought GitHub (I can be wrong obviously). Further would I say that this section is even more biased by giving claims without substantial proof. Like, were there attempts of adding the missing info which were denied?

n0toose commented 2023-09-14 20:04:23 +00:00

Owner

Copy Link

Looking at the frontpage, I recall it being like this for years... even before MS bought GitHub (I can be wrong obviously).

Further would I say that this section is even more biased by giving claims without substantial proof.
Like, were there attempts of adding the missing info which were denied?

Haven't compared using Internet Archive, but agreed.

> Looking at the frontpage, I recall it being like this for years... even before MS bought GitHub (I can be wrong obviously). > Further would I say that this section is even more biased by giving claims without substantial proof. Like, were there attempts of adding the missing info which were denied? Haven't compared using Internet Archive, but agreed.

Andre601 commented 2023-09-14 22:14:12 +00:00

Contributor

Copy Link

Haven't compared using Internet Archive, but agreed.

Quickly checked.

25th of Feb. 2015:

05th of Sep. 2023:

The frontpage is basically identical with some changes being the removal of v2 in the GNU GPL mention and links to known projects being added.
Also, I did check even further back (Up to the very first entry in 2013) and it's pretty much no difference between that and the 2015 version.

So the issues mentioned in the docs of codeberg have existed before GitHub had been acquired by MS (June 2018) and even before Codeberg was a thing.

> Haven't compared using Internet Archive, but agreed. Quickly checked. 25th of Feb. 2015:  05th of Sep. 2023:  The frontpage is basically identical with some changes being the removal of v2 in the GNU GPL mention and links to known projects being added. Also, I did check even further back (Up to the very first entry in 2013) and it's pretty much no difference between that and the 2015 version. So the issues mentioned in the docs of codeberg have existed before GitHub had been acquired by MS (June 2018) and even before [Codeberg was a thing](https://blog.codeberg.org/codebergorg-launched.html).

grafik.png

697 KiB

grafik.png

146 KiB

👍 1

n0toose commented 2023-09-16 15:07:16 +00:00

Owner

Copy Link

One could argue that it's "always been like this", but the sentence in the docs is indeed plain wrong then and should be rewritten. Keep in mind that text like this is mostly written by one person, and can only turn more optimal through a series of iterative improvements by various people (both in the sense of objective as well as in the sense of including and representing multiple points of view).

One could argue that it's "always been like this", but the sentence in the docs is indeed plain wrong then and should be rewritten. Keep in mind that text like this is mostly written by one person, and can only turn more optimal through a series of iterative improvements by various people (both in the sense of objective as well as in the sense of including and representing multiple points of view).

wolftune commented 2023-12-30 05:47:01 +00:00

Copy Link

FYI, I was around and involved somewhat in the original situation with choosealicense (as a volunteer in this space, not employed by any relevant entity). The initial concerns about it were blatantly clear. GitHub went and paid O'Reilly for a sponsored keynote talk slot at OSCON where GitHub founder Tom Preston-Werner said point blank that legal stuff is about limits, and so if you want freedom you want less of that, right, so look at MIT, nice and short, and then he showed a one-slide entire-text-of-GPL and said something like, "look at all that, it's so long, that's not what freedom is". You can find videos of this if you want to watch his presentation from back then, I think it was 2013 or 2014.

At the original time, the choosealicense stuff was exactly what you would do if you wanted plausible deniability about being anti-GPL but you wanted a site that would lead to the absolute minimum of visitors deciding to use GPL.

For various reasons, Tom got pushed out of GitHub (he went too far in the egotistic Bro-startup style, and some weird tension around accusations of Tom's wife showing up at work and bullying some other female employee, I dunno, don't waste your time looking at the history here).

After that, I know of several people like Mike Linksvayer who are unambiguously supportive of software freedom and who submitted issues and suggestions about choosealicense until most of the egregious issues were resolved. In the end, the site still cannot be considered GitHub-independent but people in good faith moderated it to end up more neutral and less anti-GPL. It still certainly does not promote GPL or do a great job of educating anyone about the actual motivations. But overall, it's not so bad now.

Anyway, just wanted to share the historical perspective. I don't have a strong feeling about removing the reference right now. I'm happy that the community was able to make the choosealicense site more acceptable.

FYI, I was around and involved somewhat in the original situation with choosealicense (as a volunteer in this space, not employed by any relevant entity). The initial concerns about it were blatantly clear. GitHub went and paid O'Reilly for a sponsored keynote talk slot at OSCON where GitHub founder Tom Preston-Werner said point blank that legal stuff is about limits, and so if you want freedom you want less of that, right, so look at MIT, nice and short, and then he showed a one-slide entire-text-of-GPL and said something like, "look at all that, it's so long, that's not what freedom is". You can find videos of this if you want to watch his presentation from back then, I think it was 2013 or 2014. At the original time, the choosealicense stuff was *exactly* what you would do if you wanted plausible deniability about being anti-GPL but you wanted a site that would lead to the absolute minimum of visitors deciding to use GPL. For various reasons, Tom got pushed out of GitHub (he went too far in the egotistic Bro-startup style, and some weird tension around accusations of Tom's wife showing up at work and bullying some other female employee, I dunno, don't waste your time looking at the history here). After that, I know of several people like Mike Linksvayer who are unambiguously supportive of software freedom and who submitted issues and suggestions about choosealicense until most of the egregious issues were resolved. In the end, the site still cannot be considered GitHub-independent but people in good faith moderated it to end up more neutral and less anti-GPL. It still certainly does not *promote* GPL or do a great job of educating anyone about the actual motivations. But overall, it's not so bad now. Anyway, just wanted to share the historical perspective. I don't have a strong feeling about removing the reference right now. I'm happy that the community was able to make the choosealicense site more acceptable.

wolftune referenced this issue 2023-12-30 05:55:02 +00:00

An ambigous licensing guide at creating repo page #624

fnetX commented 2023-12-30 13:05:07 +00:00

Owner

Copy Link

Is 1509e29d94 a simple hotfix to the issue? It points to our documentaton instead of choose a license. If there are no objections, it will be included in the next deployment to Codeberg.

The page it points to is this one: https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/

I know that there have been active discussions about how to improve the licensing article there, and it is probably best to let the folks over there sort it out instead of duplicating the efforts.

Feedback is probably still appreciated there:

• Codeberg/Documentation#348
• Codeberg/Documentation#174

Is https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/forgejo/commit/1509e29d94b4a6a8696879d1a5f6f0f7c7b24e5a a simple hotfix to the issue? It points to our documentaton instead of choose a license. If there are no objections, it will be included in the next deployment to Codeberg. The page it points to is this one: https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/ I know that there have been active discussions about how to improve the licensing article there, and it is probably best to let the folks over there sort it out instead of duplicating the efforts. Feedback is probably still appreciated there: - https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/348 - https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/issues/174

👍 3

sthagen commented 2023-12-30 13:14:53 +00:00

Copy Link

@fnetX the commit 1509e29d94 looks good to me and I verified that the link there works.

I support resolving this issue with the aforementioned change and move license related discussion on the merge request Codeberg/Documentation#348 and the issue Codeberg/Documentation#174.

Thanks for providing the change.

Updated the links (should have been clear from context anyway) in case it helps.

@fnetX the commit [1509e29d94](https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/forgejo/commit/1509e29d94b4a6a8696879d1a5f6f0f7c7b24e5a) looks good to me and I verified that the link there works. I support resolving this issue with the aforementioned change and move license related discussion on the merge request [Codeberg/Documentation#348](https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/348) and the issue [Codeberg/Documentation#174](https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/issues/174). Thanks for providing the change. Updated the links (should have been clear from context anyway) in case it helps.

👍 1

wolftune commented 2024-01-09 17:50:44 +00:00

Copy Link

@sthagen btw, because it is a different repo, your use of #348 format in your comment makes the links go to the wrong places.

@sthagen btw, because it is a different repo, your use of `#348` format in your comment makes the links go to the wrong places.

Sign in to join this conversation.

No Branch/Tag Specified

Branches Tags

main

Labels

Clear labels   

accessibility

Reduces accessibility and is thus a "bug" for certain user groups on Codeberg.

  

bug

Something is not working the way it should. Does not concern outages.

  

bug

infrastructure

Errors evidently caused by infrastructure malfunctions or outages

  

Codeberg

This issue involves Codeberg's downstream modifications and settings and/or Codeberg's structures.

  

contributions welcome

Please join the discussion and consider contributing a PR!

  

docs

No bug, but an improvement to the docs or UI description will help

  

duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  

enhancement

New feature

  

infrastructure

Involves changes to the server setups, use `bug/infrastructure` for infrastructure-related user errors.

  

legal

An issue directly involving legal compliance

  

licence / ToS

involving questions about the ToS, especially licencing compliance

  

please chill

we are volunteers

Please consider editing your posts and remember that there is a human on the other side. We get that you are frustrated, but it's harder for us to help you this way.

Archived

  

public relations

Things related to Codeberg's external communication

  

question

More information is needed

  

question

user support

This issue contains a clearly stated problem. However, it is not clear whether we have to fix anything on Codeberg's end, but we're helping them fix it and/or find the cause.

  

s/Forgejo

Related to Forgejo or Gitea. Please also check Gitea's and Forgejo's issue tracker.

  

s/Pages

Issues related to the Codeberg Pages feature

  

s/Weblate

Issue is related to the Weblate instance at https://translate.codeberg.org

  

s/Woodpecker

Woodpecker CI related issue

  

security

involves improvements to the sites security

  

service

Add a new service to the Codeberg ecosystem (instead of implementing into Gitea)

  

upstream

An open issue or pull request to an upstream repository to fix this issue (partially or completely) exists (i.e. Gitea, Forgejo, etc.)

  

wontfix

Codeberg's current set of contributors are not planning to spend time on delegating this issue.

No Label

accessibility

bug

bug

infrastructure

Codeberg

contributions welcome

docs

duplicate

enhancement

infrastructure

legal

licence / ToS

please chill

we are volunteers

public relations

question

question

user support

s/Forgejo

s/Pages

s/Weblate

s/Woodpecker

security

service

upstream

wontfix

Milestone

Clear milestone

No items

No Milestone

Assignees

Clear assignees

No Assignees

6 Participants

Notifications

Subscribe

Due Date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: Codeberg/Community#1214

No description provided.