-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 11
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
Determine Open Source License plan #23
Comments
In general, copyright licenses aren't trademark licenses, so I think this is a non-issue, and any license such as the Apache License 2.0 that is aware of this is a good choice. Other licenses could be good choices, too; I haven't done a full thoughtful analysis. Here's what Apache License 2.0 says:
My default advice is the Apache License 2.0 for all things, due to its thoughtful (and FSF-approved, not that you necessarily care) patent and trademark text. |
I've been advised by lawyers long ago that code licenses (like MIT, and maybe Apache) aren't appropriate for "content" -- for RailsBridge documentation lawyer advised that we specifically say code was MIT and course material was some appropriate Creative Commons license. We need to explicitly think about the context for a CC-BY (e.g. what if our text was used by a group that did not share our values, just as a white supremacist organization, how would we want it to be attributed? might be worth specifying text to be included as attribution) |
The bigger problem: When we incorporated and became our own 501c3, we did the first wave of legal policy set up. There is no corporate structure that is grassroots. Ability to self organize and have an organization that is corporate is very complicated. Anyone can use our documentation using our open source license and can call it a Bridge workshop. We provide resources (open source materials). We need all of the Bridges and all of the websites to have this particular open source license. @ultrasaurus cannot remember which ones we have done it for.
|
I'd like us to have some kind of open source license such that anyone can borrow our policy language, if that is helpful, but of course that shouldn't give them license to use as is (with our name and stuff), so this needs a bit of thought.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: