Organize docs and add license #16

n commented 2020年07月28日 16:52:40 +02:00

This is the organized documentation from my closed PR #13 with some changes.

(削除) It uses some content from Gitea's docs, I have included the Apache license for now. (削除ここまで)
Content taken from Gitea's docs has been removed. It includes the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.

Closes #15 once we get permission for licensing.

This is the organized documentation from my closed PR #13 with some changes. ~~It uses some content from Gitea's docs, I have included the Apache license for now.~~ Content taken from Gitea's docs has been removed. It includes the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. Closes #15 once we get permission for licensing.

lhinderberger commented 2020年07月28日 20:09:11 +02:00

Thank you for organizing the docs!

Also since it uses some content from Gitea's docs, it is licensed under the Apache license. Closes #15.

That would be great, but I'm afraid it's not that easy.

Does your pull request contain content from the current documentation files as well?
Because then, licensing would still be undecided, as not every contributor of the current files has agreed to using the Apache license.

Besides, I'm a bit critical towards using a software license for documentation. I think a CC license would probably be a better fit. On the other hand it would be nice to be able to incorporate documentation from Gitea as well.

Maybe we need to have a look into license compatibility and see, if it's permissible to incorporate Apache licensed works into CC-licensed works?

Thank you for organizing the docs! > Also since it uses some content from Gitea's docs, it is licensed under the Apache license. Closes #15. That would be great, but I'm afraid it's not that easy. Does your pull request contain content from the current documentation files as well? Because then, licensing would still be undecided, as not every contributor of the current files has agreed to using the Apache license. Besides, I'm a bit critical towards using a software license for documentation. I think a CC license would probably be a better fit. On the other hand it would be nice to be able to incorporate documentation from Gitea as well. Maybe we need to have a look into license compatibility and see, if it's permissible to incorporate Apache licensed works into CC-licensed works?

n commented 2020年07月29日 09:35:59 +02:00

Also since it uses some content from Gitea's docs, it is licensed under the Apache license. Closes #15.

That would be great, but I'm afraid it's not that easy.

Does your pull request contain content from the current documentation files as well?
Because then, licensing would still be undecided, as not every contributor of the current files has agreed to using the Apache license.

Of course, I forgot to set it as a WIP.

Besides, I'm a bit critical towards using a software license for documentation. I think a CC license would probably be a better fit. On the other hand it would be nice to be able to incorporate documentation from Gitea as well.

Maybe we need to have a look into license compatibility and see, if it's permissible to incorporate Apache licensed works into CC-licensed works?

Agreed!

> > Also since it uses some content from Gitea's docs, it is licensed under the Apache license. Closes #15. > > That would be great, but I'm afraid it's not that easy. > > Does your pull request contain content from the current documentation files as well? > Because then, licensing would still be undecided, as not every contributor of the current files has agreed to using the Apache license. Of course, I forgot to set it as a WIP. > Besides, I'm a bit critical towards using a software license for documentation. I think a CC license would probably be a better fit. On the other hand it would be nice to be able to incorporate documentation from Gitea as well. > > Maybe we need to have a look into license compatibility and see, if it's permissible to incorporate Apache licensed works into CC-licensed works? Agreed!

lhinderberger commented 2020年08月02日 16:29:45 +02:00

Since #15 is now resolved, I think this PR is looking very fine :)

I suggest we squash the commits into one to avoid having commits with invalid licenses in our commit history.

Maybe we can also add a CONTRIBUTORS.md file that we then can link from the documentation site when stating that the content is under CC-BY-SA.

Since #15 is now resolved, I think this PR is looking very fine :) I suggest we squash the commits into one to avoid having commits with invalid licenses in our commit history. Maybe we can also add a `CONTRIBUTORS.md` file that we then can link from the documentation site when stating that the content is under CC-BY-SA.

hw commented 2020年08月02日 16:38:15 +02:00

With #16 merged, what is needed to get this live?

With #16 merged, what is needed to get this live?

lhinderberger commented 2020年08月02日 16:39:30 +02:00

@hw - The commit's weren't squashed, which means we currently have an invalid license in master's history. 🙁

@hw - The commit's weren't squashed, which means we currently have an invalid license in master's history. 🙁

hw commented 2020年08月02日 17:05:24 +02:00

☺ no worry, the license change has been agreed upon and documented in this thread. All good ;)

☺ no worry, the license change has been agreed upon and documented in this thread. All good ;)

lhinderberger commented 2020年08月02日 17:11:00 +02:00

I don't mean the CC-BY-SA license, that's all fine and good 😄

My comment was about commits like REDACTED that are currently available in master's history and that have an Apache license in their source tree even though we haven't agreed on that license.

I suggest we squash master from HEAD to (including) REDACTED to represent the result of our discussion in the commit history in a clean way.

I don't mean the CC-BY-SA license, that's all fine and good 😄 My comment was about commits like REDACTED that are currently available in master's history and that have an Apache license in their source tree even though we haven't agreed on that license. I suggest we squash master from HEAD to (including) REDACTED to represent the result of our discussion in the commit history in a clean way.

hw commented 2020年08月02日 17:13:46 +02:00

done.

done.

lhinderberger commented 2020年08月02日 17:15:10 +02:00

Thank you :)

Thank you :)