An ambigous licensing guide at creating repo page #624

faustzero1 commented 2022年05月17日 18:06:32 +02:00

At the [https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/]
On the Conflict-of-interests section it indicate that [https://choosealicense.com/] is a bad document resource of the choosing a license,
that [https://choosealicense.com/] creating encouragement for people to using MIT license as if the user condition is "I want it simple and permissive" which is somewhat untrue.

However my question is, why Codeberg are still using choosealicense.com as reference at the creating repo page?
Yes I know this thing is from the Gitea (the Codeberg upstream), but I think this is an ambiguous thing that makes some kinda obscurity, should we make our a guide like choosealicense.com version of ourself?

NB: I post the issue here [https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/] with the aim of getting more views than just post on here [https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/gitea].
I'm using this style of formatting only as an affirmation in the hope that it can be more understandable for the readers, please let me know if this just makes it worse.

At the [https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/licensing/] On the **Conflict-of-interests** section it indicate that [https://choosealicense.com/] is a bad document resource of the choosing a license, that [https://choosealicense.com/] creating encouragement for people to using MIT license as if the user condition is "I want it simple and permissive" which is somewhat untrue. However my question is, **why Codeberg are still using choosealicense.com** as reference at the creating repo page? Yes I know this thing is from the Gitea (the Codeberg upstream), but I think this is an ambiguous thing that makes some kinda obscurity, **should we make our a guide like choosealicense.com version of ourself**? NB: I post the issue here [https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/] with the aim of getting more views than just post on here [https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/gitea]. *I'm using this style of formatting only as an affirmation in the hope that it can be more understandable for the readers, please let me know if this just makes it worse.*

fnetX commented 2022年05月17日 19:00:09 +02:00

This issue tracker is the right place, you can't open issues in Codeberg/Gitea.

You mean links within Gitea itself? Is pointing to our docs instead a good option? Please also see #459.

This issue tracker is the right place, you can't open issues in Codeberg/Gitea. You mean links within Gitea itself? Is pointing to our docs instead a good option? Please also see #459.

Wuzzy commented 2022年06月03日 00:12:03 +02:00

Good issue. References to choosealicense.com should be completely eliminated because it is sub-par. Codeberg is right in slamming this website. 😁

Regardless of that particular website, I personally think documentation should be self-contained and doesn't link to any external website (except when to prove something or for further reading, or when it's about a completely different project). Because external websites can go offline, change, break, etc. IMHO external websites should only supplement, but not replace documentation.

Also, it would be great if this could be fixed upstream and not only on codeberg.org.

Good issue. References to choosealicense.com should be completely eliminated because it *is* sub-par. Codeberg is right in slamming this website. 😁 Regardless of that particular website, I personally think documentation should be self-contained and doesn't link to any external website (except when to prove something or for further reading, or when it's about a completely different project). Because external websites can go offline, change, break, etc. IMHO external websites should only supplement, but not replace documentation. Also, it would be great if this could be fixed upstream and not only on codeberg.org.

Ghost commented 2022年09月03日 09:13:09 +02:00

@faustzero1 As the mentioned link is provided by Gitea itself, would you mind opening an issue upstream at the gitea issue tracker?

I personally think documentation should be self-contained and doesn't link to any external website

Having a documentation that doesn't need to utilize external links is surely a nice thing, but - as you already might know - someone needs to write and review these documentation.

New contributors to our docs are always welcome, feel free to have a look at https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation

@faustzero1 As the mentioned link is provided by Gitea itself, would you mind opening an issue upstream at the gitea issue tracker? > I personally think documentation should be self-contained and doesn't link to any external website Having a documentation that doesn't need to utilize external links is surely a nice thing, but - as you already might know - someone needs to write and review these documentation. New contributors to our docs are always welcome, feel free to have a look at https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation

wolftune commented 2023年12月30日 06:55:02 +01:00

Noting here that this issue was duplicated in a more-recent (and more active) issue #1214

Noting here that this issue was duplicated in a more-recent (and more active) issue https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Community/issues/1214