Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Unclear software licensing #3

Open
simoninns opened this issue Oct 29, 2021 · 4 comments
Open

Unclear software licensing #3

simoninns opened this issue Oct 29, 2021 · 4 comments

Comments

@simoninns
Copy link

The documentation states that the project is 'open-source', however CC licensing is for content not software as per creative commons own FAQ: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software

If the only applied license is CC (which is not by definition an open-source license for the code) - can you clarify what license is applied for the open-source code advertised?

Open-source is means using an OSI compliant license (otherwise the code is published, but it's not open-source) and should therefore be a license named on the following page:

https://opensource.org/licenses/

Thanks in advance!

@DenzelChen
Copy link
Contributor

This means you can use them on your own derived works, in part or completely. But NOT for the purpose of commercial use. You can find a copy of the license in this repository.

Freenove brand and logo are copyright of Freenove Creative Technology Co., Ltd. Can't be used without formal permission.

@simoninns
Copy link
Author

ok, that I read from the docs, but as per my issue statement - a CC license is for content not for code. If you apply it to code it's not open-source as that requires an OSI complaint license such as GPL or MIT

So let me rephrase - do you have any intention of applying an open-source license to the code in order to align the code with your marketing which states the project is "open source"? - because currently it is not open-source as the licensing on the code is CC.

@DenzelChen
Copy link
Contributor

Thank you for your feedback.
I guess we need to use this license for the code.
https://opensource.org/licenses/Apache-2.0

@simoninns
Copy link
Author

You are welcome to use any OSI approved license; it's your code and therefore your choice. My point is that, if you state it's open-source, then it should be clear how it's licensed :) . The CC license is fine for content (such as documentation and physical design files (CAD, STL and the like).

For the code Apache-2.0 is a good choice (as are all of the OSI approved licenses); if you decide on that then you should look at the advice from the license description though and clearly mark your git repo using the LICENSE file at the top-level:

"APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work"

It's at the bottom of the page you linked. For your own benefit (and that of your customers) - it should be clearly stated what applies. There's also advice from github on best-practice:

https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository

Thanks for taking the time to look into this and for providing more clarity.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants