-
|
With #17010 / #16980 a NON-OpenSource License was added to OpenSource/MIT Code:
Since Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License is not compatible to OpenSource - see Rules for Open Source in public founded projects . They are not allowed to use/work on this projects with this public money. Since a Developer must write not only code but also docs its now impossible to contribute. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 4 comments 4 replies
-
|
Thanks for bringing this up. I'm not sure if what you're saying is true since the only reference you cited is written in German and I don't know German.
Who is "they"? In any event, it's incorrect to say that the project is no longer open source because of a CC license applied to the docs. Other projects, such as libuv, do similar things without problem. I'm not opposed to removing the CC license, as it does seem that MIT covers licensing the documentation as well, but I would like some more background information. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
So we have basicly 2 issues:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi @nzakas, I understand that it is fine to license the documentation under the CC license even if the main license is MIT. The problem here is that when the license of the documentation is a non commercial license, some open source projects like https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/automotive.tractusx, that uses eslint, may have to violate our policy of not including files licensed under non commercial licenses in our projects. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
libuv uses: you: If you had chosen For all contributors that made commits to the docs it might be still surprising that you re-license from MIT to.... |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The Main issue for my project is that we are allowed to use just open source Software that is non restriktiv..your moved to a non commercial license. Which we are not allowed to use. Listing of Non OpenSource |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@nzakas Could we help with a PR that reverts the license back to MIT, or an non NON COMMERCIAL (NC) license. like |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Sorry, I've been moving and have not been online for most of the past two weeks. I spoke with the OpenJS Foundation legal team about this. To summarize:
So the action here is to determine which license to use, and as a followup, we'll need to find all of the documentation commits after the license was introduced and pull those out, update the license, then ask the original authors to resubmit. Here's the issue to track the work: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I think that moving to CC-BY 4.0 is a really good . Thx |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Sorry, I've been moving and have not been online for most of the past two weeks.
I spoke with the OpenJS Foundation legal team about this. To summarize:
So the action here is to determine which license to use, and as a followup, we'll need to…