Conversation

Notices

Codeberg.org (codeberg@mastodon.technology)'s status on Monday, 31-Jan-2022 15:44:54 UTC Codeberg.org

Content without a license is not free content!
We'll now pop-up license reminders in case you forgot to add one and to warn users about legal uncertainty.
Also see https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/
The reminders might look like this:
In conversation Monday, 31-Jan-2022 15:44:54 UTC from mastodon.technology permalink
Attachments
1. Screenshot of the Codeberg UI. A red warning banner apperas with the text This repo appears not to have a license, which means all copyright is reserved by the authors by default. Please consider carefully if you want to use (parts of) this project, as doing so might put you in legal trouble. All public code on Codeberg needs to be under an OSI- or FSF-approved Free Software or Content license to save you from trouble like this. The content in this repo will be excluded from the platform if the author does not add a valid license soon. Learn more about licensing on Codeberg on the docs. Feel free to contact them and suggest doing so.
  https://cdn.mastodon.technology/media_attachments/files/107/212/670/728/915/421/original/535be57184dc4af9.png
2. Untitled attachment
- Codeberg.org (codeberg@mastodon.technology)'s status on Monday, 31-Jan-2022 15:44:54 UTC Codeberg.org
  in reply to
  
  Our license reminders have been revised and are working great so far.
  It's nice to see that most of you add FLOSS licenses as a very first step, and our reminders have led to some more content now being free.
  Sorry for being annoying with these reminders, but it's very important, even for tiny projects, so others can safely improve or build upon. Thank you for caring 💙
  
  In conversation Monday, 31-Jan-2022 15:44:54 UTC permalink
  
  Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
- Codeberg.org (codeberg@mastodon.technology)'s status on Monday, 31-Jan-2022 15:46:27 UTC Codeberg.org
  in reply to
  - Werwolf :gnu:
  - Ali Reza Hayati
  @werwolf @arh
  Do you have suggestions to the https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/#copyleft paragraph and the suggestions below? Feel free to submit a contribution.
  Also see https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/issues/174
  In conversation Monday, 31-Jan-2022 15:46:27 UTC permalink
  Attachments
  1. No result found on File_thumbnail lookup.
    
    Licensing on Codeberg | Codeberg Documentation
  2. Improve licensing article
    
    from Codeberg
    
    Just some additions to the recently added article from #173 (https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/) Mention private repo / note-taking rule: A user on Mastodon asked about private repos? We should mention that private repos are possible (re-link to the FAQ which explains this, but people only looking at the licensing guide will overlook the clarification in the FAQ and the section in the Terms of Use) How to apply: People might wonder how to apply a license to your code. AFAICT, it's usually considered *okay* to just put a file next to your code, but to properly license code and avoid any legal uncertainty, it should be explicitly stated that the code is under this license, right? Ideally, every file should include a license header. It might be good to give good and precise instructions on how to actually change the license, especially since the full license texts are sometimes hard to copy into a easily readable file (so maybe tell people what's necessary to reference a file that lives outside etc). A place where someone was hit by the "adding a file is enough" is in Codeberg/Community#407, and I agree that the Gitea UI kinda suggests that using the license dialog is everything you need. Reasoning: Some people might wonder *why* a repo needs a license. Some hints are kinda hidden, but they might be made more prominently. > Not specifying a license for your code does not automatically mean you've made it available without restrictions; you are still its copyright holder and must explicitly make the code free by choosing a free license. > Please do not use custom licenses, they are usually a bad idea and might result in legal uncertainty. --- @michielappelman are you interested in fixing this up once more? No obligation of course, your first version is already very nice, these are just some improvements I can think of by now.
- Alexandre Oliva (lxo@gnusocial.net)'s status on Monday, 31-Jan-2022 15:46:27 UTC Alexandre Oliva
  in reply to
  
  the text looks pretty good to me
  one suggestion about the first paragraph under copyleft: after "when redistributing the program", make it "when distributing the program, with or without changes", since the requirements apply also to modified versions, and maybe add "(if you choose to distribute it)" so that the later paragraph on AGPL makes sense (to dispel the false notion that GPLv3 requires changes to be distributed or published)
  thanks!
  
  In conversation Monday, 31-Jan-2022 15:46:27 UTC permalink
  
  Santa Claes 🇸🇪🇭🇰🎅 likes this.
- Werwolf :gnu: (werwolf@fosstodon.org)'s status on Monday, 31-Jan-2022 15:46:28 UTC Werwolf :gnu:
  in reply to
  - Ali Reza Hayati
  @arh @codeberg absolutely, the GPL family assures that the software will remain free as in freedom for everyone, which benefits both the developer and the users
  
  In conversation Monday, 31-Jan-2022 15:46:28 UTC permalink
- Ali Reza Hayati (arh@mastodon.alirezahayati.com)'s status on Monday, 31-Jan-2022 15:46:33 UTC Ali Reza Hayati
  in reply to
  
  @codeberg it would be nice to suggest GPL family too.
  
  In conversation Monday, 31-Jan-2022 15:46:33 UTC permalink