[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (re-)evaluation of

From: bill-auger
Subject: Re: (re-)evaluation of
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 07:19:56 -0400

On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 00:47:49 -0400 Richard wrote:
> GitHub does recommend licenses.
> It offers a list of licenses when you start a project, and says good
> and bad things about them.

all licenses are presented equally though, from the same simple
flat menu - i just checked, and there is a link to the
'choose-a-license' documentation - that describes the properties
of different licenses; but i dont think it makes any judgments or

the only part that resembles a recommendation is presented
factually, as the distinction between permissive and copyleft,
with only MIT and GPLv3 given as examples - essentially: "the
'MIT' license allows people to proprietarize your software. the
'GPLv3' does not allow that" - those are effectively
recommendations; but they are presented equally and without bias

i think the github licensing documentation is less opinionated
than you are presuming - read it for yourself; and see if you
find anything disagreeable

the most disagreeable thing i see, at first glance is

> "You're under no obligation to choose a license."

but it does still have my warning, which explain why most people
would not want 'no-license':

> If you find software that doesn’t have a license, that generally
> means you have no permission from the creators of the software
> to use, modify, or share the software. Although a code host such
> as GitHub may allow you to view and fork the code, this does not
> imply that you are permitted to use, modify, or share the
> software for any purpose.

On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 00:47:49 -0400 Richard wrote:
>   > ???? - A3 - Offers AGPLv3-or-later
>   >        for the reason described in C5, no forge does this (not even
>   >        savannah)  
> Do we need to clarify the description of A3?

the confusing part of that, is "-or-later" - it is not
technically possible for the forge to "offer" "-or-later" - that
is a maintenance task for the code maintainer, completely
unrelated to the initial license chooser - for that reason, the
intention of C5, A2, and A3, could only be evident in the form
of documentation - the software has no way to enforce
"-or-later", nor to assist with implementing it - all they can
do is instantiate a git repo containing a lone GPL file - i
am suggesting to simply drop the: 'or-later' - it is an
impossible requirement, that even savannah can not meet

 - Offers the AGPLv3 as an option. (A3)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]