An ambigous licensing guide at creating repo page
At the [https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/]
On the Conflict-of-interests section it indicate that [https://choosealicense.com/] is a bad document resource of the choosing a license,
that [https://choosealicense.com/] creating encouragement for people to using MIT license as if the user condition is "I want it simple and permissive" which is somewhat untrue.
However my question is, why Codeberg are still using choosealicense.com as reference at the creating repo page?
Yes I know this thing is from the Gitea (the Codeberg upstream), but I think this is an ambiguous thing that makes some kinda obscurity, should we make our a guide like choosealicense.com version of ourself?
NB: I post the issue here [https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/] with the aim of getting more views than just post on here [https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/gitea].
I'm using this style of formatting only as an affirmation in the hope that it can be more understandable for the readers, please let me know if this just makes it worse.
Good issue. References to choosealicense.com should be completely eliminated because it is sub-par. Codeberg is right in slamming this website. 😁
Regardless of that particular website, I personally think documentation should be self-contained and doesn't link to any external website (except when to prove something or for further reading, or when it's about a completely different project). Because external websites can go offline, change, break, etc. IMHO external websites should only supplement, but not replace documentation.
Also, it would be great if this could be fixed upstream and not only on codeberg.org.
Deleting a branch is permanent. It CANNOT be undone. Continue?