What about projects that aren't 100% OSI compliant? #238

Open
opened 1 year ago by ell1e · 27 comments
ell1e commented 1 year ago

I am interested in trying out codeberg with a project of mine where everyhing in the repo except the logo, which for ease of organization I still keep in that repo, is under a free license. The logo isn't under an open license to make it easier to distinguish forks - to basically require if anyone forks, they should use their own logo and name for it so it is obvious that it is a fork.

I don't intend to say that you must accept such projects on your platform, but I do wonder what your stance on it is and whether this would be ok to host here? From a strict terms of use reading it appears it currently isn't, while I can live with that I still wanted to ask to be sure. (Also if you think this derivation is tolerable, maybe slightly loosening the terms of use would be useful? E.g. not fully OSI-compliant licensed can be cleared up on a case by case basis, or similar)

I am interested in trying out codeberg with a project of mine where everyhing in the repo except the logo, which for ease of organization I still keep in that repo, is under a free license. The logo isn't under an open license to make it easier to distinguish forks - to basically require if anyone forks, they should use their own logo and name for it so it is obvious that it is a fork. I don't intend to say that you *must* accept such projects on your platform, but I do wonder what your stance on it is and whether this would be ok to host here? From a strict terms of use reading it appears it currently isn't, while I can live with that I still wanted to ask to be sure. (Also if you think this derivation is tolerable, maybe slightly loosening the terms of use would be useful? E.g. not fully OSI-compliant licensed can be cleared up on a case by case basis, or similar)

Excellent question!

While I personally cannot answer your question in regards to Codeberg's policies, let me point you to Codeberg/Design#16, where we've very recently had a similar discussion about our own logo.

There, the consensus was (roughly speaking) to keep the copyright and trademark law aspects of the logo separate and to use an open license (without trademark grant) for the copyright aspect of the logo while adding a trademark notice for the trademark aspect.

We've also collected quite a bit of information on open source and trademark law there, so feel free to browse around. Maybe that can be helpful you with your issue. :)

Excellent question! While I personally cannot answer your question in regards to Codeberg's policies, let me point you to Codeberg/Design#16, where we've very recently had a similar discussion about our own logo. There, the consensus was (roughly speaking) to keep the copyright and trademark law aspects of the logo separate and to use an open license (without trademark grant) for the copyright aspect of the logo while adding a trademark notice for the trademark aspect. We've also collected quite a bit of information on open source and trademark law there, so feel free to browse around. Maybe that can be helpful you with your issue. :)
lhinderberger added the
question
label 1 year ago
Poster

@lhinderberger trademarks aren't feasible for small projects due to cost reasons. I recognize using copyright is a workaround, but I do consider it somewhat effective for now. (However, not a lawyer, and this is just for my personal project circumstances.) But using that approach does seem to clash with your terms of use, hence my question regarding the policies.

@lhinderberger trademarks aren't feasible for small projects due to cost reasons. I recognize using copyright is a workaround, but I do consider it somewhat effective for now. (However, not a lawyer, and this is just for my personal project circumstances.) But using that approach does seem to clash with your terms of use, hence my question regarding the policies.
hw commented 1 year ago
Owner

require if anyone forks, they should use their own logo and name for it so it is obvious that it is a fork.

Clauses like these are not uncommon in OSI approved licenses (albeit usually for text not logo, but the intent should be transferable?), could you try to explain a bit more in detail where you see the conflict?

> require if anyone forks, they should use their own logo and name for it so it is obvious that it is a fork. Clauses like these are not uncommon in OSI approved licenses (albeit usually for text not logo, but the intent should be transferable?), could you try to explain a bit more in detail where you see the conflict?
Poster

@hw your terms of use appear to require literally OSI-approved licenses, not OSI-approved-alike or "with similar intent" licenses. so that seems like a problem a strict reading of the terms as they are written right now.

Also if you want to get into a interpretation of degrees of freedom, I assume you're referring to artistic license etc. Those licenses afaik still allow basing a project on 100% of the files, not 99.999%/all but one (the logo file), albeit some altered. So in a way those could be seen as more free than excluding the logo fully, even with the renaming condition. I don't think it's a notable difference, but obviously others will disagree and it can admittedly turn into a slippery slope. So I don't think it is as obvious and easy, and so far certainly seems to clash with your terms of use which seem to take a stricter no-exceptions route so far.

Edit: just to repeat, I am not a lawyer so all of this could be wrong

@hw your terms of use appear to require **literally** OSI-approved licenses, not OSI-approved-alike or "with similar intent" licenses. so that seems like a problem a strict reading of the terms as they are written right now. Also if you want to get into a interpretation of degrees of freedom, I assume you're referring to artistic license etc. Those licenses afaik still allow basing a project on 100% of the files, not 99.999%/all but one (the logo file), albeit some altered. So in a way those could be seen as more free than excluding the logo fully, even with the renaming condition. I don't think it's a notable difference, but obviously others will disagree and it can admittedly turn into a slippery slope. So I don't think it is as obvious and easy, and so far certainly seems to clash with your terms of use which seem to take a stricter no-exceptions route so far. Edit: just to repeat, I am not a lawyer so all of this could be wrong
hw commented 1 year ago
Owner

@hw your terms of use appear to require literally OSI-approved licenses, not OSI-approved-alike or "with similar intent" licenses. so that seems like a problem a strict reading of the terms as they are written right now.

We might consider rephrasing the ToS here, ... any proposals?

> @hw your terms of use appear to require **literally** OSI-approved licenses, not OSI-approved-alike or "with similar intent" licenses. so that seems like a problem a strict reading of the terms as they are written right now. > We might consider rephrasing the ToS here, ... any proposals?
Poster

@hw maybe something like:

For Free and Open Software projects (FOSS) as defined by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Open Source Initiative (OSI), Codeberg provides Repository and Version Control, Wiki, and Issue Tracker hosting under certain terms and conditions. These services are referred to as “service”, “hosting” and “platform” in this document.

Our service is open for all projects working under a license compatible with either the Open-Source-License definition of the Free Software foundation (FSF) or the Open Source Initiative (OSI).
(Added:) For projects with licenses that aim to be open but where the license isn't OSI-approved, exceptions may be granted by Codeberg on a case by case basis with no guarantees of fairness. These exceptions may be revoked again at any time for any reason.

(I am not a lawyer though so check this with someone capable!!)

Whether you think that is morally the right approach is up to you, but in my opinion it is the most practical one I can think of. Because in any case I assume a new gray area instance will appear and cause split discussions, I don't think that is avoidable even when being more specific.

For what it's worth, this is the project of mine just to illustrate where I'm coming from: https://github.com/horse64/core.horse64.org/blob/master/LICENSE.md As you can see it's a simple license for the logo, hopefully the intent is clear and seems fair. However, clearly it is neither fully open nor fully OSI-approved and will never be. (Edit: by which I mean, to me such a license would seem likely to never gain OSI-approval)

@hw maybe something like: > For Free and Open Software projects (FOSS) as defined by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Open Source Initiative (OSI), Codeberg provides Repository and Version Control, Wiki, and Issue Tracker hosting under certain terms and conditions. These services are referred to as “service”, “hosting” and “platform” in this document. > > Our service is open for all projects working under a license compatible with either the Open-Source-License definition of the Free Software foundation (FSF) or the Open Source Initiative (OSI). > **(Added:)** For projects with licenses that aim to be open but where the license isn't OSI-approved, exceptions may be granted by Codeberg on a case by case basis with no guarantees of fairness. These exceptions may be revoked again at any time for any reason. *(I am not a lawyer though so check this with someone capable!!)* Whether you think that is morally the right approach is up to you, but in my opinion it is the most practical one I can think of. Because in any case I assume a new gray area instance will appear and cause split discussions, I don't think that is avoidable even when being more specific. For what it's worth, this is the project of mine just to illustrate where I'm coming from: https://github.com/horse64/core.horse64.org/blob/master/LICENSE.md As you can see it's a simple license for the logo, hopefully the intent is clear and seems fair. However, clearly it is neither *fully* open nor fully OSI-approved and will never be. (Edit: by which I mean, to me such a license would seem likely to never gain OSI-approval)
hw commented 1 year ago
Owner

OSI approved licenses like the Apache 2.0 license certainly contain clauses enforcing such:

  1. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor, except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file.

Does this work in your case?

We definitely see the problem of weak and convoluted trademark law internationally. We'd like to propose change Codeberg/org#9 in wording for the Terms of Use. What do you all think?

OSI approved licenses like the [Apache 2.0 license](https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0) certainly contain clauses enforcing such: > 6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor, except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file. Does this work in your case? We definitely see the problem of weak and convoluted trademark law internationally. We'd like to propose change https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/9 in wording for the Terms of Use. What do you all think?
Poster

Does this work in your case?

No since it appears to apply to trademarks, on which I've commented above.

Also just because a license attempts to solve this problem doesn't fix any of the other issues it may have. E.g. both Apache and Artistic license are very long, which to me is a considerable downside.

> Does this work in your case? No since it appears to apply to trademarks, on which I've [commented above](https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/238#issuecomment-77697). Also just because a license attempts to solve *this* problem doesn't fix any of the other issues it may have. E.g. both Apache and Artistic license are very long, which to me is a considerable downside.

Can you elaborate on why you consider (non-registered?) trademarks to be prohibitively expensive for small projects?

I don't know much about that topic, but the way I as a layman thought it works is that you have a trademark automatically, much like a copyright but unlike copyright you have to enforce your trademarks, in case of infringement, otherwise you might lose them.

Considering the length of i.e. the Apache license, I'd say that's a classic triangle tradeoff: Openness, Brevity and Protection. Choose any two 😉

Can you elaborate on why you consider (non-registered?) trademarks to be prohibitively expensive for small projects? I don't know much about that topic, but the way I as a layman thought it works is that you have a trademark automatically, much like a copyright but unlike copyright you have to enforce your trademarks, in case of infringement, otherwise you might lose them. Considering the length of i.e. the Apache license, I'd say that's a classic triangle tradeoff: Openness, Brevity and Protection. Choose any two :wink:
hw commented 1 year ago
Owner

Does this work in your case?

No since it appears to apply to trademarks, on which I've commented above.

Marks can be words or images, registered and without registration...

Still your point is a very valid one, quite a number of FOSS licenses do not contain any such clause. Let's discuss Codeberg/org#9 and see how we can improve the wording.

> > Does this work in your case? > > No since it appears to apply to trademarks, on which I've [commented above](https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/238#issuecomment-77697). > Marks can be words or images, registered and without registration... Still your point is a very valid one, quite a number of FOSS licenses do not contain any such clause. Let's discuss https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/9 and see how we can improve the wording.
Poster

the way I as a layman thought it works is that you have a trademark automatically,

Not a lawyer, but you can google this. (And then ignore what you find and ask a lawyer, lol. But anyway:) Implicit trademarks apparently are often not recognized in other countries, and in the EU there appears to be no mechanism like this in some places at all. Or the exact opposite of what I said, since I don't know what I'm talking about. But it's complicated, edit: and it seems like copyright has more uniform international recogniztion, basically.

Considering the length of i.e. the Apache license, I’d say that’s a classic triangle tradeoff: Openness, Brevity and Protection. Choose any two 😉

That is an unhelpful generalization, since I feel sufficiently protected by what I'm using and it's shorter. My point was, just because a license possibly does one thing I want to do doesn't mean it is suitable in other regards. Not that I think Apache does what I want anyway, and while Artistic possibly does it looks hard to follow. (Edit 2: ok read it some more and seems like maybe it doesn't if I understand it right, but might be too off-topic for me to go into this detail here)

Edit:

and without registration

Just to add another point, please be careful since people might drop in here via Google and could get wrong info if it's not 100% accurate for their jurisdiction (since this seems to differ somewhat depending on location)

> the way I as a layman thought it works is that you have a trademark automatically, Not a lawyer, but you can google this. (And then ignore what you find and ask a lawyer, lol. But anyway:) Implicit trademarks apparently are often not recognized in other countries, and in the EU there appears to be no mechanism like this in some places at all. Or the exact opposite of what I said, since I don't know what I'm talking about. But it's complicated, edit: and it seems like copyright has more uniform international recogniztion, basically. > Considering the length of i.e. the Apache license, I’d say that’s a classic triangle tradeoff: Openness, Brevity and Protection. Choose any two 😉 That is an unhelpful generalization, since I feel sufficiently protected by what I'm using and it's shorter. My point was, just because a license possibly does one thing I want to do doesn't mean it is suitable in other regards. Not that I think Apache does what I want anyway, and while Artistic possibly does it looks hard to follow. (Edit 2: ok read it some more and seems like maybe it doesn't if I understand it right, but might be too off-topic for me to go into this detail here) Edit: > and without registration Just to add another point, please be careful since people might drop in here via Google and could get wrong info if it's not 100% accurate for their jurisdiction (since this seems to differ somewhat depending on location)

That is a quite unhelpful generalization

Why so aggressive? 🤔 My answer was meant half-jokingly... I'm trying to understand your issue and I'm investing some of my time to try and contribute information to it, but if all I get are answers like this one, you'll have to ask someone else.

> That is a quite unhelpful generalization Why so aggressive? 🤔 My answer was meant half-jokingly... I'm trying to understand your issue and I'm investing some of my time to try and contribute information to it, but if all I get are answers like this one, you'll have to ask someone else.
Poster

I apologize, I should have written that less confrontationally. Sorry about that, I didn't mean to upset anyone 🌻

I apologize, I should have written that less confrontationally. Sorry about that, I didn't mean to upset anyone 🌻

Thank you. No hard feelings 🙂

Let's move on solving the issue 🚀

Thank you. No hard feelings 🙂 Let's move on solving the issue 🚀
lhinderberger added the
legal
label 1 year ago

Our service is open for all projects working under a license compatible with either the Open-Source-License definition of the Free Software foundation (FSF) or the Open Source Initiative (OSI).

If I have a private repository "Notes" with random personal items (no license, never will have a license as they are personal notes) does this mean I am violating the Terms of Service?

> Our service is open for all projects working under a license compatible with either the Open-Source-License definition of the Free Software foundation (FSF) or the Open Source Initiative (OSI). If I have a private repository "Notes" with random personal items (no license, never will have a license as they are personal notes) does this mean I am violating the Terms of Service?
hw commented 9 months ago
Owner

As usual, Common Sense applies.

As usual, Common Sense applies.

It would be nice to have the ToS updated to allow Ethical licenses, keeping in spirit with openness eg. the Hippocratic License
https://ethicalsource.dev/licenses/

It would be nice to have the ToS updated to allow Ethical licenses, keeping in spirit with openness eg. the Hippocratic License https://ethicalsource.dev/licenses/
Collaborator

Nice idea. They aren't currently OSI / FSF compatible? Makes sense if not, they don't guarantee freedom to everyone

I don't mind explicitly adding them and I will gladly assign myself.
Any objections?

Nice idea. They aren't currently OSI / FSF compatible? Makes sense if not, they don't guarantee freedom to everyone I don't mind explicitly adding them and I will gladly assign myself. Any objections?

Awsome! Sure, go ahead.
Hippocratic License has an SPDX identifier now
https://spdx.org/licenses/Hippocratic-2.1.html

Awsome! Sure, go ahead. Hippocratic License has an SPDX identifier now https://spdx.org/licenses/Hippocratic-2.1.html

Just to clarify, the HL folks argue that the license is open and does not impinge on freedom
https://firstdonoharm.dev/faq.html

Just to clarify, the HL folks argue that the license is open and does not impinge on freedom https://firstdonoharm.dev/faq.html
Collaborator

Agree, I also think that it is okay to limit absolute freedom in order to make sure it is preserved. That's just what many GPL and other more restrictive licenses do, why not with ethical clauses ...

I'll wait a few days if there are objections from the community and will create a MR to update the TOS as soon as I find the time. Feel free to be quicker 😉

Agree, I also think that it is okay to limit absolute freedom in order to make sure it is preserved. That's just what many GPL and other more restrictive licenses do, why not with ethical clauses ... I'll wait a few days if there are objections from the community and will create a MR to update the TOS as soon as I find the time. Feel free to be quicker 😉
hw commented 8 months ago
Owner

We surely do not have to slavishly stick to some external definition, but can agree on our own standards in discussion.

As this however goes deeper than just a mere ToS change (Enabling and supporting FOSS projects is the very core of our statutes and bylaws), a broader discussion of the topic is deserved to probably the right way to reach consensus.

@duggalsu , @fnetX : Would you like to open a dedicated issue for this, to find consensus here?

On a side note, in a couple of weeks Codeberg e.V. members will assemble for the annual (virtual) meeting, this is probably also a good place to discuss those interpretations.

We surely do not have to slavishly stick to some external definition, but can agree on our own standards in discussion. As this however goes deeper than just a mere ToS change (Enabling and supporting FOSS projects is the very core of our statutes and bylaws), a broader discussion of the topic is deserved to probably the right way to reach consensus. @duggalsu , @fnetX : Would you like to open a dedicated issue for this, to find consensus here? On a side note, in a couple of weeks Codeberg e.V. members will assemble for the annual (virtual) meeting, this is probably also a good place to discuss those interpretations.

For the discussion, I think I have an interesting addition here.

https://github.com/TeHikuMedia/corpora#license-kaitiakitanga

This is a license built around language knowledge of a native tribe - and they want to openly share it, but be under an amount of control someone work. Particularly, an example they give is that this language corpus could be easily integrated into products that interpret it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGQy0r_icWc gives a good overview of the project and includes a section on that reasoning.

The problem here isn't the open, but that they are a community that is struggling for their own and have low trust to engage - and can be easily steamrolled by lack of resources. It would be sad if an open host would not be a place for such communities.

For the discussion, I think I have an interesting addition here. https://github.com/TeHikuMedia/corpora#license-kaitiakitanga This is a license built around language knowledge of a native tribe - and they want to openly share it, but be under an amount of control someone work. Particularly, an example they give is that this language corpus could be easily integrated into products that interpret it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGQy0r_icWc gives a good overview of the project and includes a section on that reasoning. The problem here isn't the open, but that they are a community that is struggling for their _own_ and have low trust to engage - and can be easily steamrolled by lack of resources. It would be sad if an open host would not be a place for such communities.

Hi @hw, I have opened the issue #385. Could you send me the details of when and where the virtual meetup would be held? I can try to invite the author of the Hippocratic License.

Hi @hw, I have opened the issue #385. Could you send me the details of when and where the virtual meetup would be held? I can try to invite the author of the Hippocratic License.
Poster

For the discussion, I think I have an interesting addition here.

https://github.com/TeHikuMedia/corpora#license-kaitiakitanga

Just for what it's worth: "You must contact us and seek permission to access, use, contribute towards, or modify code in this repository" sounds a bit like the opposite of "openly shar[ing]" if read in a pessimist way. At least in my mind, I find it difficult to imagine allowing such a license is possible without basically allowing any license of any kind to be hosted (which as I understand is not what Codeberg is aiming for). So accomodating that one might be a bit difficult.

A response to one of the other comments:

As usual, Common Sense applies.

Then why not codify it? Could be something like "on a case by case basis, for repositories where the large majority of contained code is under an OSI or FSF-approved licensing and just a few, non-essential files have a proprietary license, exceptions MAY be granted". (Better to have that reviewed by a proper lawyer though.) Basically to clearly spell out the potential leeway to decide this way on your side, while not giving any guarantees about it of any kind. I think that would already be enough to convince most people that really minor deviations from this openness principle will probably not be booted off immediately.

> For the discussion, I think I have an interesting addition here. > > https://github.com/TeHikuMedia/corpora#license-kaitiakitanga Just for what it's worth: "You must contact us and seek permission to access, use, contribute towards, or modify code in this repository" sounds a bit like the opposite of "openly shar[ing]" if read in a pessimist way. At least in my mind, I find it difficult to imagine allowing such a license is possible without basically allowing any license of any kind to be hosted (which as I understand is not what Codeberg is aiming for). So accomodating that one might be a bit difficult. A response to one of the other comments: > As usual, Common Sense applies. Then why not codify it? Could be something like "on a case by case basis, for repositories where the large majority of contained code is under an OSI or FSF-approved licensing and just a few, non-essential files have a proprietary license, exceptions MAY be granted". (Better to have that reviewed by a proper lawyer though.) Basically to clearly spell out the potential leeway to decide this way on your side, while not giving any guarantees about it of any kind. I think that would already be enough to convince most people that really minor deviations from this openness principle will probably not be booted off immediately.

Just for what it's worth: "You must contact us and seek permission to access, use, contribute towards, or modify code in this repository" sounds a bit like the opposite of "openly shar[ing]" if read in a pessimist way. At least in my mind, I find it difficult to imagine allowing such a license is possible without basically allowing any license of any kind to be hosted (which as I understand is not what Codeberg is aiming for). So accomodating that one might be a bit difficult.

I highly recommend listening to the talk and the reasoning behind it. We are, in this case, talking about a desinfranchised tribe that has an experience of their work and labor being taken for free that still tries to find their way towards an open source way. There's maybe feedback to be given to that formulation for clarification, but I find their reasoning sound (I highly recommend watching that talk). For them, this is literally the bulwark against having their data models they worked hard on to just be used for free - something they cannot allow because of the resource situation they are in.

While I agree that a general rule here can't be found as an open source platform host, I think a lightweight exception process or an iteration of acceptable additional licenses. It's pretty hard to capture all complexity here. But this group is IMHO a desireable audience.

I would even - for the same reason - have this go through an exception process, to a) give security that groups like this will not be hit by a policy change here (protection for the user) and b) that there's no abuse, by e.g. companies using a relaxation to the rule to use this host (protection from abuse).

I'm not trying to make up an oddball case here, I'm taking it as an example of a well-made argument why OSS is sometimes not in the realm of possible for groups that I believe many in the OSS space are happy to support.

And exception process would, IMHO, be the admission that the world is complex and strengthens the possiblity to come up with a broad rule.

> Just for what it's worth: "You must contact us and seek permission to access, use, contribute towards, or modify code in this repository" sounds a bit like the opposite of "openly shar[ing]" if read in a pessimist way. At least in my mind, I find it difficult to imagine allowing such a license is possible without basically allowing any license of any kind to be hosted (which as I understand is not what Codeberg is aiming for). So accomodating that one might be a bit difficult. I highly recommend listening to the talk and the reasoning behind it. We are, in this case, talking about a desinfranchised tribe that has an experience of their work and labor being taken for free that still tries to find their way towards an open source way. There's maybe feedback to be given to that formulation for clarification, but I find their reasoning sound (I highly recommend watching that talk). For them, this is literally the bulwark against having their data models they worked hard on to just be used for free - something they _cannot allow because of the resource situation they are in_. While I agree that _a general rule_ here can't be found as an open source platform host, I think a lightweight exception process or an iteration of acceptable additional licenses. It's pretty hard to capture all complexity here. But this group is IMHO a desireable audience. I would even - for the same reason - have this go through an exception process, to a) give security that groups like this will not be hit by a policy change here (protection for the user) and b) that there's no abuse, by e.g. companies using a relaxation to the rule to use this host (protection from abuse). I'm not trying to make up an oddball case here, I'm taking it as an example of a well-made argument why OSS is sometimes not in the realm of possible for groups that I believe many in the OSS space are happy to support. And exception process would, IMHO, be the admission that the world is complex and strengthens the possiblity to come up with a broad rule.
Poster

I think if it can be worked out how to make this happen with the codeberg association's statue and non-profit purpose, then I would also favor a manual exemption process the most. (I guess the best way to work that out is to set some high but in the end flexible bars for this? Like, stating that it should only apply to a minority of projects who are still in their spirit about open exchange with society and advancing knowledge for everyone, or something. Just a wild idea.) I wouldn't mind applying for that with my weird "proprietary logo" licensing at all, I think a manual review is very fair. But I'm not sure if that is what Codeberg people would want to take on, so I guess it's not up to me to decide. I'd also be up for a "if it's just a few files it MAY be tolerated" not manually checked exemption though, but that likely wouldn't work for the disenfranchised tribe situation. So I can relate to the desire for something more flexible, for sure.

I think if it can be worked out how to make this happen with the codeberg association's statue and non-profit purpose, then I would also favor a manual exemption process the most. (I guess the best way to work that out is to set some high but in the end flexible bars for this? Like, stating that it should only apply to a minority of projects who are still in their spirit about open exchange with society and advancing knowledge for everyone, or something. Just a wild idea.) I wouldn't mind applying for that with my weird "proprietary logo" licensing at all, I think a manual review is very fair. But I'm not sure if that is what Codeberg people would want to take on, so I guess it's not up to me to decide. I'd also be up for a "if it's just a few files it MAY be tolerated" not manually checked exemption though, but that likely wouldn't work for the disenfranchised tribe situation. So I can relate to the desire for something more flexible, for sure.
fnetX added the
licence / ToS
label 4 months ago
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Milestone
No Assignees
7 Participants
Notifications
Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

This issue currently doesn't have any dependencies.

Loading…
There is no content yet.