No software license

[LukeMoll]

The repository is missing any license information. This is of course not a simple issue as the repository includes both the content of the website and the tooling required to build it. The majority of the latter is included in main.js, with the remaining files making up the former. If separate licensing is desirable, the repository could be licensed as suitable for the content, "except where noted" and an alternative license could be included in the header of main.js.

[markspolakovs]

I imagine we'd need to get all past contributors (https://github.com/HackSoc/hacksoc.org/graphs/contributors) to agree to a relicensing (considering it's currently implicit-all-rights-reserved).

[LukeMoll]

Further discussion in committee meeting of 21st August (minutes to come)

[markspolakovs]

Indeed (minutes). Let's start the bikeshedding, shall we?

So I think the most reasonable way to do this is to have two licences, one for the code and one for the site content, because the latter is far less likely to be used in good faith than the former and we may want to better restrict how it is used. At the meeting CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 was proposed, which I personally think is reasonable. That leaves two questions: software licence, and how to segment which licence applies to which areas.

The former: may I propose the Mozilla Public Licence 2.0. It's more restrictive than the MIT and Apache licences, but stops short of the onerousness of the LGPL and GPL. Namely, it requires redistribution of any modified MPL'd files, but doesn't "infect" the rest of an application like the GPL does. Am open to input on this however.

The latter: the best I can think of is that all *.md, *.pdf, *.html, and image files should be under CC, while all other files (including CSS, JS, and handlebars) should be under whatever software licence. But again, am open to any and all feedback on this.

[LukeMoll]

For my input (having disentangled the build system from the content once), my opinion is the content license should apply to the everything (including web assets, styles, scripts) except for the build system (that is, index.js and the relevant NPM json files). I think the handlebars templates are practically content, especially as the HackSoc appearance and branding is mostly defined in that.

• I think the distinction between website and build system is more clear and meaningful (if the repository were to be split in two, that would be the boundary)
• Licensing the content potentially more restrictively (in order to prevent bad-faith use) should include the use of HackSoc branding
• The written content of the website depends much more heavily on the assets, styles, and scripts than the build system does.

[markspolakovs]

@LukeMoll That works too, I'm personally happy with that. So, just so we're on the same page, the rule would be that main.js and the *.json files in the root are under Undetermined Source Licence, and the rest is CC?

(ed: we'd also need to exclude the fonts, as those have their own licences)

[LukeMoll]

Essentially yes, I think the wording of the rule should include the spirit ("the build system source code and its related packaging files") and the files listed explicitly since there's not that many of them. No opinions on CC so equally happy with that or something.

…

On Thu, 26 Aug 2021, 8:25 am Marks Polakovs, ***@***.***> wrote: @LukeMoll <https://github.com/LukeMoll> That works too, I'm personally happy with that. So, just so we're on the same page, the rule would be that main.js and the *.json files in the root are under Undetermined Source Licence, and the rest is CC? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#150 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AB2N5U5CEUDVFLAQ67XVGW3T6XT65ANCNFSM442ML6NQ> . 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> .

[sersorrel]

notes:

• all the stuff under minutes, news, regular, servers, and templates feels like "content", yeah
• main.js is clearly code/build system; to the extent that package{,-lock}.json are copyrightable, those are too
• static is a little spicy
  • as pointed out, we need to make the separate license for fonts clear
  • do we want to make our logo CC, even BY-NC-SA? (also in images is a bytemark logo, which, h)
  • we have a calendar.js that is not really content in the same way as "a news article" but is also not build system
  • what's the css? content, on the same basis as the templates?
• README.md is a kinda interesting case, i guess treating it as content will lead to least pain overall? (given it's as much a style guide for the website as it is documentation for the build system) but idk tbh

my takes:

• the CC NC licenses suck, but w/e, i will not veto BY-NC-SA
• MPL 2.0 seems... fine? i think? if calendar.js ends up being MPL, we must at minimum include that information in that file itself, since it's distributed by way of Being JavaScript In The Website
• i would be kinda unhappy about licensing any code under a CC license (specifically calendar.js, i am less fussed about the css), but not i-will-not-agree-to-this levels of unhappy, i think
• bleh idk licenses suck