h759bkyo4/Documentation
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Resolve conversations from #181 (#208)

Browse source 
Only did some minor changes (most of them are formatting) and resolving all conversations from #181

Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/Documentation/pulls/208
Co-authored-by: René Schaar <rene@schaar.priv.at>
Co-committed-by: René Schaar <rene@schaar.priv.at>
This commit is contained in:
René Schaar 2022-03-13 20:05:39 +01:00 committed by Otto Richter
parent db9f81fb39
commit eec4dd6085
1 changed files with 15 additions and 12 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

27
content/getting-started/licensing.md
View file

@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ If you need a licence for a [non-software project](#hardware-projects), you can
### Licence decision diagram
Do you want to allow people to create proprietary (closed-source) projects with your code, or do you expect your project to remain small (e.g. less than 300 lines)?
Do you either want to allow people to create proprietary (closed-source) projects with your code, or do you expect your project to remain small (e.g. less than 300 lines)?
* No --> Do you want to allow people to create a closed-source service, for example by using your code on a web server without releasing the source code?
* No --> We recommend using the **AGPL-3.0-or-later** licence
@ -58,22 +58,24 @@ If all copyright holders agree, a project can always be forked into a project wi
There is no general rule for choosing one type of licence or the other in every situation, but we encourage using copyleft licences whenever possible.
### Free vs. non-free licences
Free software licences are licences which respect the [four fundamental software freedoms](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms) defined by the Free Software Foundation.
Both copyleft and permissive licence can, or cannot, be free licences. For example, the [Modified BSD licence](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ModifiedBSD) is a permissive non-copyleft free software licence.
In the context of licences, therefore, the term "free" has the meaning of "freedom" not of gratis, but this has often been confused. Still, free software is often also gratis software.
Gratis non-free software usually includes gratis proprietary programs (shareware), demonstration or trial versions, limited versions (crippleware), advertising-supported software (e.g. antiviruses), and usually viruses and worms (the victim doesn't pay to get them).
### Patent usage
Some permissive/temporarily-open licences like the MIT licence do not contain a patent provision granting the users the right to use their patents. For example the code might be licenced under the MIT licence but implement an algorithm which is protected by a patent. In this case, the licence might allow to copy, modify and distribute the code but at the same time does not guarantee the right to use the patented algorithm. It is a common argument in favour of the MIT licence to claim that no public lawsuit has ever been conducted yet. Still the threat to be sued remains and it can be used to exert pressure. Some, if not most, licence disputes moreover are settled even [before reaching the court](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.en.html) and could therefore leave no trace. Even Google [avoided the use of the MIT licence when developing Android](https://source.android.com/setup/start/licenses), presumably because of the missing patent provision.
Some permissive/temporarily-open licences like the MIT licence do not contain a patent provision granting the users the right to use their patents. For example the code might be licenced under the MIT licence but implements an algorithm which is protected by a patent. In this case, the licence might allow to copy, modify and distribute the code but at the same time does not guarantee the right to use the patented algorithm. It is a common argument in favour of the MIT licence to claim that no public lawsuit has ever been conducted yet. Still the threat to be sued remains and it can be used to exert pressure. Some, if not most, licence disputes moreover are settled even [before reaching the court](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.en.html) and could therefore leave no trace. Even Google [avoided the use of the MIT licence when developing Android](https://source.android.com/setup/start/licenses), presumably because of the missing patent provision.
For further information on "patents and free software" head over to [this wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_and_free_software).
## Warnings
### Licence proliferation
Over the years, hundreds of different software/artwork licences have been written, used and abandoned. This causes a big harm to the Free and Open Source community because it makes it more difficult for everybody to understand their meaning and compatibility between them. A common reaction of developers is to refuse discussions about licences or their use altogether. Rather than dispersing efforts in a multitude of isolated and incompatible efforts ([licence proliferation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_proliferation)), we recommend using whenever possible only the mainstream licences as highlighted in this page.
Over the years, hundreds of different software/artwork licences have been written, used and abandoned. This causes a big harm to the Free and Open Source community because it makes it more difficult for everybody to understand their meaning and compatibility between them. A common reaction of developers is to refuse discussions about licences or their use altogether. Rather than dispersing efforts in a multitude of isolated and incompatible efforts ([licence proliferation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_proliferation)), we recommend using whenever possible only the mainstream licences as highlighted in this page.
### Licence incompatibilities
@ -85,7 +87,7 @@ For more information on licence compatibility, we recommend the commented [licen
### Conflict-of-interests
The open-source community is represented by a variety of groups with different, and sometimes opposite, interests. For example, the prominent websites [ChooseALicense.com](https://choosealicense.com) is curated by GitHub and can be assumed to reflect at least partially the interests of Microsoft: This website presents for example GPL last on the front page and it is silent about the missing patent clause in the MIT licence both in the front page and in the [dedicated page](https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/ ). Moreover, the wording "I want it simple and permissive" can induce people to favour the MIT licence: Laypeople will want to have legal matters simple, and "permissive" sounds like fair and good.
The open-source community is represented by a variety of groups with different, and sometimes opposite, interests. For example, the prominent websites [ChooseALicense.com](https://choosealicense.com) is curated by GitHub and can be assumed to reflect at least partially the interests of Microsoft: This website presents for example GPL last on the front page and it is silent about the missing patent clause in the MIT licence both in the front page and in the [dedicated page](https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/ ). Moreover, the wording "I want it simple and permissive" can induce people to favour the MIT licence: Laypeople will want to have legal matters simple, and "permissive" sounds like fair and good.
When reading articles on licences (including this one) we recommend exercising discretion by inspecting the governance of the source and the risk of conflicting interests.
### Contributor licence agreement (CLA)
@ -99,7 +101,7 @@ A [contributor licence agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_Lice
For software projects, we recommend whenever possible to utilize a copyleft licence. The only well-established licences of this type are those of the GNU General Public Licence (GPL) family. The GPL licences have evolved over time and come with different versions. Unfortunately, some versions are not compatible with older ones. To avoid [licence proliferation](#licence-proliferation) and to ease compatibility with future versions, we recommend using the "GNU Affero General Public Licence v3.0 or later" with SPDX licence identifier ["AGPL-3.0-or-later"](https://spdx.org/licenses/). The AGPL provides the maximum openness of the code: Even when the software runs on a server, users who interact with that software (e.g. over a network connection) are entitled to receive a copy of the source code.
The [Affero GPL v3.0](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html) is compatible with the [GPL v3.0](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html) and vice-versa thanks to article 13 in each licence.
If using the Affero General Public Licence (AGPL) v3.0 or later is not an option, we recommend using another licence of the GNU family, such as the General Public Licence (GPL), or the Lesser General Public Licence (LGPL), always indicating the version "**v3.0 or later**".
If using the Affero General Public Licence (AGPL) v3.0 or later is not an option, we recommend using another licence of the GNU family, such as the General Public Licence (GPL), or the Lesser General Public Licence (LGPL), always indicating the version "**v3.0 or later**".
In some cases, such as when writing certain libraries, using the Lesser General Public Licence (LGPL) may lead to a broader usage. In such cases, the [LGPL is preferred over the (A)GPL](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL).
For software which is not very long (e.g. less than 300 lines of code) or unimportant, rather than using a copyleft licence you may consider using a [lax permissive licence instead](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatIfWorkIsShort).
@ -111,16 +113,15 @@ We recommend following the guidelines defined by the [GNU project](https://www.g
We distinguish primarily between two families of hardware projects:
1. Hardware projects with little or no software dependencies (e.g. projects containing CAD drawings), and
2. Hardware projects containing important software dependencies (e.g. the design of an integrated circuit) where compatibility issues with other licences may arise.
1. Hardware projects with little or no software dependencies (e.g. projects containing CAD drawings)
2. Hardware projects containing important software dependencies (e.g. the design of an integrated circuit) where compatibility issues with other licences may arise
In the first case, we recommend the use of the CERN Open Hardware Licence Version 2 - Strongly Reciprocal (SPDX licence identifier: CERN-OHL-S-2.0). This licence guarantees the forever-openness of the project as well as the actual hardware objects, but is incompatible with other mainstream licences like those of the GNU-GPL family.
In the first case, we recommend the use of the CERN Open Hardware Licence Version 2 - Strongly Reciprocal (SPDX licence identifier: CERN-OHL-S-2.0). This licence guarantees the forever-openness of the project as well as the actual hardware objects, but is incompatible with other mainstream licences like those of the GNU-GPL family.
In the second case, there is currently no copyleft/forever-open licence with wide licence compatibility which is able to protect a hardware device. This is primarily due to the fact that hardware objects are not protected by Copyright law. While awaiting for the appearance of a suited licence, we recommend the use the "GNU Affero General Public Licence v3.0 or later" whenever the use of a CERN Open Hardware Licence is not permitted.
In the second case, there is currently no copyleft/forever-open licence with wide licence compatibility which is able to protect a hardware device. This is primarily due to the fact that hardware objects are not protected by Copyright law. While awaiting for the appearance of a suited licence, we recommend the use the "GNU Affero General Public Licence v3.0 or later" whenever the use of a CERN Open Hardware Licence is not permitted.
For hardware projects which should allow creating proprietary forks and/or proprietary hardware objects a licence can be used as described in the next section "other projects".
### Other projects (documentation, music, etc.)
For documentation, writing and other non-code assets a [Creative Commons (CC)](https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/) licence can be used, but note that only the following CC licences are considered free (sorted from protective to unconditional):
@ -131,14 +132,16 @@ For documentation, writing and other non-code assets a [Creative Commons (CC)](h
Like CC themselves, Codeberg **recommends against** using a [CC licence on code](https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software).
### FAQ
We do not curate our own FAQ. Instead we redirect to other major collections:
* [Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licences](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html)
* [Contributor's Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) guide](https://www.fsf.org/licensing/contributor-faq)
* [Licensing and Compliance Lab: The most frequently asked Frequently Asked Questions](https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/licensing-and-compliance-lab-the-most-frequently-asked-frequently-asked-questions)
If you have further questions on licensing feel free to reach out to our community matrix channels. Access links are provided at the [contact page](/contact/).
### Spelling: licence or license?
* In the USA: licen**s**e = noun, to licen**s**e = verb