License of Documentation content #15

Closed
opened 2 years ago by lhinderberger · 21 comments
Collaborator

Hey everyone,

while browsing through the Documentation repo and thinking about how to extend the docs of Codeberg, I wondered which license the Documentation is under?

I think we should make the licensing terms clear early on to encourage contribution.

CC @buhtz and all other contributors to this Wiki

Hey everyone, while browsing through the Documentation repo and thinking about how to extend the docs of Codeberg, I wondered which license the Documentation is under? I think we should make the licensing terms clear early on to encourage contribution. CC @buhtz and all other contributors to this Wiki
Poster
Collaborator

Related to this, the pull request to build a Hugo-powered documentation site seems to be under the Apache License, I guess due to being a fork of gitea/docs: #13

Related to this, the pull request to build a Hugo-powered documentation site seems to be under the Apache License, I guess due to being a fork of `gitea/docs`: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/13

Good point.
I will sign everything. ;)
All my content is for the community.

Good point. I will sign everything. ;) All my content is for the community.
Poster
Collaborator

That's great :)

Personally, I would currently lean towards CC-BY 4.0

On the other hand, in #16 there's quite a bit of additional documentation available under the Apache license (with parts from Gitea).

Bringing both together under one license would be ideal.

That's great :) Personally, I would currently lean towards CC-BY 4.0 On the other hand, in #16 there's quite a bit of additional documentation available under the Apache license (with parts from Gitea). Bringing both together under one license would be ideal.
n commented 2 years ago
Collaborator

I couldn't find any information about the Apache License being compatible with CC licenses but I have found that the Apache License v2 is compatible with GPLv3.

I couldn't find any information about the Apache License being compatible with CC licenses but I have found that the Apache License v2 is [compatible with GPLv3](https://apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#GPL).
Poster
Collaborator

First things first, IANAL, so take everything I say with a grain of salt 😉

After having a quick read of the Apache License, things could get complicated once we create derived / modified versions of their content, because the License says:

You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files

Which then will be hard to keep track of (which parts of which files were originally from Gitea, etc.).

Also, we would need to add a full copy of the Apache license somewhere on the site

You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License

And attribution would be needed as well, if I interpret that section correctly:

You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works

Which again is hard to keep track of, compared to an approach with a CLA.

But the most important point in regards of compatibility with CC-BY is IMO the requirement to state changes, which has, as far as I can see, no counterpart in CC-BY.

Thus, I'm afraid those two licenses might not be compatible. 🙁

UPDATE: There is a section in the CC-BY license, it's Section 3.a.1.B, albeit not requiring the notices to be "prominent" - Still, for me it remains questionable, whether the requirement to add the whole Apache license is compatible with CC-BY (maybe under Section 3.a.1.A.ii?)

First things first, [IANAL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL), so take everything I say with a grain of salt 😉 After having a quick read of the Apache License, things could get complicated once we create derived / modified versions of their content, because the License says: > You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files Which then will be hard to keep track of (which parts of which files were originally from Gitea, etc.). Also, we would need to add a full copy of the Apache license somewhere on the site > You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License And attribution would be needed as well, if I interpret that section correctly: > You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works Which again is hard to keep track of, compared to an approach with a CLA. ~~But the most important point in regards of compatibility with CC-BY is IMO the requirement to state changes, which has, as far as I can see, no counterpart in CC-BY.~~ ~~Thus, I'm afraid those two licenses might not be compatible. 🙁~~ UPDATE: There is a section in the CC-BY license, it's Section 3.a.1.B, albeit not requiring the notices to be "prominent" - Still, for me it remains questionable, whether the requirement to add the whole Apache license is compatible with CC-BY (maybe under Section 3.a.1.A.ii?)
Poster
Collaborator

In the light of the above, and also when considering that the Gitea documentation can be sometimes rather brief and technical, I would suggest we write our own CC-BY-licensed documentation (with a focus on being easy to understand and beginner friendly) and require contributors to agree to a CLA, to make licensing and later modification as easy as possible.

In cases where Gitea's documentation is sufficient, we could then simply add a link to their documentation page.

In the light of the above, and also when considering that the Gitea documentation can be sometimes rather brief and technical, I would suggest we write our own CC-BY-licensed documentation (with a focus on being easy to understand and beginner friendly) and require contributors to agree to a CLA, to make licensing and later modification as easy as possible. In cases where Gitea's documentation is sufficient, we could then simply add a link to their documentation page.
n commented 2 years ago
Collaborator

Sounds good! I will remove any content from Gitea's docs from #16.

Sounds good! I will remove any content from Gitea's docs from #16.
Poster
Collaborator

@n Yes, I think that would probably be the easiest option, thank you :)

(But please note the update to my message above)

@n Yes, I think that would probably be the easiest option, thank you :) (But please note the update to my message above)
n commented 2 years ago
Collaborator

If we can clarify the Apache Licenses compatibility with CC BY 4.0 then we can add the content from Gitea's docs.
For now, I have removed that content and changed the LICENSE in the PR to CC BY 4.0.

For that, we now need to get permission from everyone who has contributed to the Wiki repo.

If we can clarify the Apache Licenses compatibility with CC BY 4.0 then we can add the content from Gitea's docs. For now, I have removed that content and changed the LICENSE in the PR to CC BY 4.0. For that, we now need to get permission from everyone who has contributed to the [Wiki repo](https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation.wiki.git).
Poster
Collaborator

After reading through the commit log of the Wiki, the two other contributors besides @buhtz are @hw, and I think @benc.

If that's correct: Would you all agree on licensing your contributions as CC-BY 4.0?

If yes, we would need to discuss whether a CLA would be appropriate and once everything is resolved, write a PR (or, even better, extend #16) to incorporate the result into this Repository.

I would then take that content and happily use it further for #17 😁

After reading through the commit log of the Wiki, the two other contributors besides @buhtz are @hw, and I think @benc. If that's correct: Would you all agree on licensing your contributions as CC-BY 4.0? If yes, we would need to discuss whether a CLA would be appropriate and once everything is resolved, write a PR (or, even better, extend #16) to incorporate the result into this Repository. I would then take that content and happily use it further for #17 😁
Poster
Collaborator

By the way, we could of course also consider other licenses, such as CC-BY-SA for example, if we want to make sure that derivatives of our Documentation remain free as well.

My previous post was a bit of a quick shot - It of course doesn't have to be CC-BY :)

By the way, we could of course also consider other licenses, such as CC-BY-SA for example, if we want to make sure that derivatives of our Documentation remain free as well. My previous post was a bit of a quick shot - It of course doesn't have to be CC-BY :)
n commented 2 years ago
Collaborator

Both CC licenses are fine, although I would prefer CC BY-SA :)

Perhaps other contributors could share their thoughts on the license?

Both CC licenses are fine, although I would prefer CC BY-SA :) Perhaps other contributors could share their thoughts on the license?
Poster
Collaborator

As a side node, if we decide for CC-BY-SA, it would be easiest to put the entire documentation site (including HTML layouts and CSS, but excluding bundled fonts) under CC-BY-SA (assuming it becomes possible after Codeberg/Design#16 is resolved).

<sub>As a side node, if we decide for CC-BY-SA, it would be easiest to put the entire documentation site (including HTML layouts and CSS, but excluding bundled fonts) under CC-BY-SA (assuming it becomes possible after https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Design/issues/16 is resolved).</sub>
Owner

Both CC licenses are fine, although I would prefer CC BY-SA :)

Perhaps other contributors could share their thoughts on the license?

Whom else we need to ask and wait for a response?

> Both CC licenses are fine, although I would prefer CC BY-SA :) > > Perhaps other contributors could share their thoughts on the license? Whom else we need to ask and wait for a response?
Poster
Collaborator

Whom else we need to ask and wait for a response?

According to the commit log of the wiki that would be you, @buhtz and @benc as far as I can tell (see above).

> Whom else we need to ask and wait for a response? According to the commit log of the wiki that would be you, @buhtz and @benc as far as I can tell (see above).
Owner

either license fine for me

either license fine for me

Yes all good with me!

Yes all good with me!
Owner

@buhtz answered already here: #15

@buhtz answered already here: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/issues/15#issuecomment-72301
n commented 2 years ago
Collaborator

Then #16 should be ready to merge! It includes the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.

Then #16 should be ready to merge! It includes the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.

@buhtz answered already here: #15

Yes I am fine with the roadmap discussed here.

> @buhtz answered already here: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/issues/15#issuecomment-72301 Yes I am fine with the roadmap discussed here.
Poster
Collaborator

That's great! Thank you all 🙂

That's great! Thank you all 🙂
hw closed this issue 2 years ago
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Milestone
No Assignees
5 Participants
Notifications
Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: Codeberg/Documentation#15
Loading…
There is no content yet.