Difference between revisions of "Licensing"
m (Protected "Licensing" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
Latest revision as of 22:42, 17 September 2016
|This page is obsolete and only retained for archival purposes.|
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.
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).