An ambigous licensing guide at creating repo page #624

Open
opened 2 months ago by faustzero1 · 2 comments

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.

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.*
Collaborator

This issue tracker is the right place, you can't open issues in Codeberg/Gitea.

You mean links within Gitea itself? Is pointing to our docs instead a good option? Please also see #459.

This issue tracker is the right place, you can't open issues in Codeberg/Gitea. You mean links within Gitea itself? Is pointing to our docs instead a good option? Please also see #459.

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.

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.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Milestone
No Assignees
3 Participants
Notifications
Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

This issue currently doesn't have any dependencies.

Loading…
There is no content yet.