[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Social-mediagoblin] Templates, CSS, Images, JS, licensing
From: |
Matt Lee |
Subject: |
Re: [Social-mediagoblin] Templates, CSS, Images, JS, licensing |
Date: |
Wed, 13 Apr 2011 19:21:15 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110307 Fedora/3.1.9-0.39.b3pre.fc14 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 |
On 04/13/2011 06:48 PM, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
> Might as well address this all now. Waiting on these kinds of licensing
> questions means they are hard or impossible to address later, so...
>
> - *Javascript:* Presumably it makes sense for this to be AGPL also?
> Unless for some reason if it normal GPL makes sense, but it's
> probably sane enough to stick with one *GPL, and private
> modifications to javascript honestly aren't much of a concern.
> (Excepting maybe greasemonkey scripts.)
GPL is fine.
> - *CSS & images/assets:* My thoughts are that I'd prefer that
> MediaGoblin ship with a really basic, very configurable base css and
> images/assets. I've thought that these should be CC BY (3.0
> unported). http://mediagobl.in will probably run a fancier, nicer
> looking theme, and that might be CC BY-SA 3.0.
Agreed. I think CC-0 for the shipping template, other templates under
CC-BY-SA 3.0
> - *Templates:* Maybe a bit trickier, because technically these contain
> logic and thus would all under the AGPL. If we want also people to
> be able to configure the templates to be something else, we'd
> probably have to do two things:
>
> - explicitly declare in the codebase that there's an HTML exception
> - maybe license the templates under something like MIT / Apache?
>
> There's this example with javascript, but the directionality here is
> you put this in your javascript so as to not necessarily have to
> have your HTML be GPL compliant:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WMS
>
> Our situation is a bit different. We want our *templates* to be
> more liberally licensed, and not be bound to the AGPL of the
> backend's python codebase. In the equivalence of the above
> description, our python code is the equivalent of that javascript
> code. Do we need to include in the header of *all* python files
> that this is the case? In the README.txt/COPYING.txt (w/ a separate
> AGPLv3.txt or etc)?
I think the template code should be under the LGPL v3.
--
Sent from my computer
Are you my close, personal friend? http://matt.lee.name/cpfom/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
- [Social-mediagoblin] Templates, CSS, Images, JS, licensing, Christopher Allan Webber, 2011/04/13
- Re: [Social-mediagoblin] Templates, CSS, Images, JS, licensing,
Matt Lee <=
- Re: [Social-mediagoblin] Templates, CSS, Images, JS, licensing, Rob Myers, 2011/04/13
- Re: [Social-mediagoblin] Templates, CSS, Images, JS, licensing, Christopher Allan Webber, 2011/04/13
- Re: [Social-mediagoblin] Templates, CSS, Images, JS, licensing, Brett Smith, 2011/04/17
- Prev by Date:
[Social-mediagoblin] Templates, CSS, Images, JS, licensing
- Next by Date:
Re: [Social-mediagoblin] Templates, CSS, Images, JS, licensing
- Previous by thread:
[Social-mediagoblin] Templates, CSS, Images, JS, licensing
- Next by thread:
Re: [Social-mediagoblin] Templates, CSS, Images, JS, licensing
- Index(es):