Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

License clarification #920

Closed
throwaway1037 opened this issue Feb 20, 2022 · 4 comments · Fixed by #922
Closed

License clarification #920

throwaway1037 opened this issue Feb 20, 2022 · 4 comments · Fixed by #922
Labels

Comments

@throwaway1037
Copy link

throwaway1037 commented Feb 20, 2022

Is every file in the project licensed under the LICENSE file, such as the articles and tutorials, or just the code?

If it does not apply to everything, please may the webpages be released under a libre license?

In any case, it would be best to add a license notice to the footer of each page so people can easily tell what the license is.

@Minoru
Copy link
Collaborator

Minoru commented Feb 23, 2022

AIUI, everything is under the MIT license 3-clause BSD license, but it's up to @jaspervdj to decide. I'd personally prefer a Creative Commons license for the tutorials, but so many people edited them by now that I wouldn't bother with re-licensing at this point.

(I stand corrected: Hakyll is under BSD3 license, not MIT license)

@jaspervdj
Copy link
Owner

I also think Creative Commons may make more sense for the documentation, but I'm unsure if we should go through relicensing unless there's a practical use case where the MIT license is currently holding us back. Did you have something in mind @throwaway1037?

@throwaway1037
Copy link
Author

throwaway1037 commented Feb 24, 2022

As long as it's libre, I don't mind what the the license is, although I'd recommend strong copyleft in most cases, and as @Minoru said, for articles, a libre CC license is preferable.
The reason I asked for clarification is because 3-clause-BSD is an uncommon choice for an article license, although it's libre nonetheless, and since there were no footers on the webpages I wondered if maybe the license applied only to the code and not every file in the project, including the articles.

As for whether it's worth upgrading the license, if it's faesible then it would be worth upgrading to CC-BY-SA-4.0-Int-or-later because it's both common and copyleft.

In any case, it would be best to include a footer at the bottom of each page so it's clear what the license is.

I'd also like to thank all contributors for writing Hakyll and all the excellent articles!
Sometimes a tutorial series is much more valuable than documentation, especially as a jumping-off point.

Minoru added a commit to Minoru/hakyll that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2022
The link leads to the latest commit on GitHub because:

1) I want to link to our own version, which has the copyright holder's
   name filled in, and also has minor changes in wording (s/its
   contributors/other contributors/);

2) I want to link to the latest version, since it gets updated from time
   to time to bump copyright years.

Fixes jaspervdj#920.
@Minoru
Copy link
Collaborator

Minoru commented Feb 27, 2022

Looks like we have a consensus, so I added a mention of BSD3 license to the footer: #922. I'll leave it to @jaspervdj to merge.

Minoru added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2022
The link leads to the latest commit on GitHub because:

1) I want to link to our own version, which has the copyright holder's
   name filled in, and also has minor changes in wording (s/its
   contributors/other contributors/);

2) I want to link to the latest version, since it gets updated from time
   to time to bump copyright years.

Fixes #920.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants