Historic:Licensing - Revision history

Admin: Admin moved page Licensing to Historic:Licensing

2024-12-04T05:19:55Z

Admin moved page Licensing to Historic:Licensing

← Older revision	Revision as of 05:19, 4 December 2024
(No difference)

Sir Finkus: Protected "Licensing" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

2016-09-17T22:42:16Z

Protected "Licensing" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

← Older revision	Revision as of 22:42, 17 September 2016
(No difference)

Sir Finkus at 22:42, 17 September 2016

2016-09-17T22:42:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:42, 17 September 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{archival}}
	Apologies for the repost, but this got buried in a talk page and I think we need to start discussing licensing beyond just the term "open-source".		Apologies for the repost, but this got buried in a talk page and I think we need to start discussing licensing beyond just the term "open-source".

FunPika: Split this section into a different page.

2014-02-11T01:30:17Z

Split this section into a different page.

New page

Apologies for the repost, but this got buried in a talk page and I think we need to start discussing licensing beyond just the term "open-source".

If no one's said it yet, I think we need to move the updated version of Slash to AGPL and get it in a git repo for people to hack on (preferably github). First step in seeing if that's possible is finding out if it's GPLv2+ (i.e. with something like the phrase "or any later version"). Then you go GPLv3 --> AGPL.

Case for the AGPL: It's recommended by the FSF for any Web software, or really any that runs primarily over a network. In my view, it will protect us from seeing the fruit of our labors turn into another locked up DiceDot... how nice would it have been to have at least the updated "Slashdot Classic" interface available now to hack on instead of the circa 2009 version? The AGPL would have made that possible by requiring the release of modifications to Slash.

Regardless of whether the forked version of Slash goes AGPL, we should still have a clear idea what the license will be. It may require the consent of the original authors to move to a license besides GPLv2 (Rob Malda, Jonathon Pater, Patrick Galbraith, Chris Nandor, Brian Aker, Cliff Wood, Jamie McCarthy), and being stuck forever on GPLv2 would be a shame.

Whether or not the project is going to have a CLA that assigns copyright to some organization, or specifies some other terms, is another question that needs community discussion.

Keep up the great work everyone, very glad to see this materializing! ~ [[User:Seandiggity|Seandiggity]] ([[User talk:Seandiggity|talk]]) 12:36, 9 February 2014 (MST)

Database license? To maintain good will, the database should be able to be forked onto new sites if SoylentNews has any sign of going corporate (maybe a bit scrubbed).