Add LICENSE-docs file #12
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Celeste Horgan <[email protected]>
|
LGTM! Thanks for contributing this <3 |
|
/hold for TOC approval @jberkus @idvoretskyi Saad had asked that we use our project board's TOC Approval column to identify items that needed approval before going live (in project-templates and on the website). Since the board is a repo board and not an org board, I can't add items from this repository to it. Can we create a board at the CNCF org level so that we can give the TOC a single place to look for items that need review? |
|
Ping @caniszczyk on the org-wide board question. |
|
@carolynvs - I'm not sure what the plan is for older projects, so I wouldn't worry too much about your projects. We definitely want to do this for new projects going forward, however :) |
|
I just remembered that we can use "notes" on a project board and link to an issue in another repo. That seems like a totally workable way to do this without needing an org level project board. I've added this issue to the board. |
| # License | ||
| $PROJECT_NAME is licensed under an [Apache 2.0 license](./LICENSE). | ||
| The #PROJECT_NAME documentation is licensed under a [CC-BY-4.0 license](./LICENSE-docs). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder if referencing two different licenses in the same github repo could cause problems?
As far as I can tell each existing repo either selects Apache 2.0 or CC-by-4.0 based on if it is a code or docs repo.
Could we do something like
| The #PROJECT_NAME documentation is licensed under a [CC-BY-4.0 license](./LICENSE-docs). | |
| <!-- Select one of the below, based on if this is a code or docs repo. --> | |
| $PROJECT_NAME is licensed under an [Apache 2.0 license](./LICENSE). | |
| #PROJECT_NAME documentation is licensed under a [CC-BY-4.0 license](./LICENSE-docs). |
And we have two files in our template LICENSE-apache and LICENSE-ccby40 and ask users to rename to LICENSE depending on the choice above?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
A lot of projects have their docs in the same repository as their code and don't break them out separately until the project is large or has complex docs. I think it would help to give them 3 options: code only repo, docs only repo, or combined repo.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd rather have LICENSE-code and LICENSE-docs files, to remove any confusion
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think that works with GitHub's autodetection of a license though, which personally I would care about.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
GitHub now supports and reports multiple licenses when a project has more than one. For details, see Easily discover and navigate to multiple licenses in repositories.
I see that this PR has been superseded by more recent changes (so maybe it should be closed or reworked), but I thought that I'd mention the new GitHub feature anyway.
Over on https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry.io (which is a website repo), we have:
- https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry.io/blob/main/LICENSE
- https://github.com/open-telemetry/opentelemetry.io/blob/main/LICENSE-CODE
GitHub links to them both just fine:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK, that definitely helps with that.
|
That's correct, FYI there's an open issue here for GitHub to support
multiple licenses todogroup/gh-issues#72
…On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 1:18 PM Carolyn Van Slyck ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
------------------------------
In README.md
<#12 (comment)>:
> \ No newline at end of file
+<!-- TODO: Edit the project name heading and include a description of the project -->
+
+# License
+$PROJECT_NAME is licensed under an [Apache 2.0 license](./LICENSE).
+The #PROJECT_NAME documentation is licensed under a [CC-BY-4.0 license](./LICENSE-docs).
I don't think that works with GitHub's autodetection of a license though,
which personally I would care about.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#12 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAPSINDGQBLTZIYQTZLCKDT4QF65ANCNFSM47EI7JAQ>
.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS
<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675>
or Android
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&utm_campaign=notification-email>
.
--
Cheers,
Chris Aniszczyk
https://aniszczyk.org
|
carolynvs
added
the
needs-toc-approval
|
@caniszczyk @amye @TheMoxieFox Is this something that we should still merge? We're cleaning up a few old things, but this looks like something that we might actually want to merge? |
|
This is actually helpful! |
| # License | ||
| $PROJECT_NAME is licensed under an [Apache 2.0 license](./LICENSE). | ||
| The #PROJECT_NAME documentation is licensed under a [CC-BY-4.0 license](./LICENSE-docs). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nit: line 46 we use $PROJECT_NAME and on line 47 we use #PROJECT_NAME
(we can merge this and open a fresh PR as well, not a blocker!)
|
We should not merge this. As far as I know, there are still unresolved questions about it. Specifically, cncf/foundation#230 is still unanswered. |
|
@jberkus thanks for the link - I'll elevate this at the next GB meeting if not sooner through other means. |
Per CNCF policy, Docs are licensed under CC-BY-4.0 while code is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This commit adds a
LICENSE-docsfile to the project, as well as a license footer to the README.md to resolve this issue. Most docs repositories are code+docs, so for the average docs repository both are needed.This came about after a short discussion with @amye and @cra :)
Signed-off-by: Celeste Horgan [email protected]