Codeberg/Documentation
44
152
Fork
You've already forked Documentation
129

Organize docs and add license #16

Merged
hw merged 1 commit from :master into master 2022年03月24日 22:16:15 +01:00
Contributor
Copy link

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.
Contributor
Copy link

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 changed title from (削除) Organize docs and add license (削除ここまで) to WIP: Organize docs and add license 2020年07月29日 08:06:33 +02:00
Author
Contributor
Copy link

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!
n changed title from (削除) WIP: Organize docs and add license (削除ここまで) to Organize docs and add license 2020年08月02日 15:56:53 +02:00
Contributor
Copy link

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 merged commit 7802f2b037 into master 2020年08月02日 16:36:55 +02:00
Owner
Copy link

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

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

@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. 🙁
Owner
Copy link

☺ 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 ;)
Contributor
Copy link

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.
Owner
Copy link

done.

done.
Contributor
Copy link

Thank you :)

Thank you :)
Sign in to join this conversation.
No reviewers
Labels
Clear labels
Codeberg Pages

Issues affecting Codeberg Pages
Documentation Usability

Issues related to using and reading docs.codeberg.org
Forgejo
Good First Issue! 👋
Kind: Bug
Kind: Documentation
Kind: Enhancement
Kind: Feature
Kind: Question
Kind: Security
Licensing
Part: Generator

This is related to the generation of the documentation, not to the content itself
Priority: High

The priority is high
Priority: Low

The priority is low
Priority: Medium

The priority is medium
Reviewed: Confirmed

Something has been confirmed
Reviewed: Duplicate

Something exists already
Reviewed: Invalid

Something was marked as invalid
Reviewed: Wontfix

Something won't be fixed
Status: Blocked
Status: Help wanted

Contributions are welcome!
Status: In progress

Work is in progress
Status: Needs feedback

Feedback is needed
Status: Ready for Review

Work is completed
Status: Review

Review is in progress / Reviewers wanted
Status: Stale
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
3 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
Codeberg/Documentation!16
Reference in a new issue
Codeberg/Documentation
No description provided.
Delete branch ":master"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?