[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: 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). 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:
>     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?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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