On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 09:37 -0400, Richard Fontana wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 03:18:20PM +0200, [email protected] wrote: > > On 09/20/2012 02:57 PM, Dave Neary wrote: > > > > >IMHO, the license matters at earliest when you're downloading (so not on > > >the front page), > > > > Disagree. It should be on the front page. For various reasons. The > > main reason being that it is a fundamentally important thing to > > know. A short thing like "Open Source mainly under ASL 2.0, > > specifics here" where "here" is a link to the detailed license page.
Definitely have to say "mainly" or "mostly". ovirt-node is GPLv2, not ASL and I'm pretty sure that the wiki stuff is something else (creative commons, maybe?) Mike > > > > Doesn't hurt at all and makes it clear upfront what we are doing here. > > I agree with Jan. I'm obviously far from your target user or > contributor (unless they are the sort that likes to or has to check > with their lawyers, which could well be the case). However, two things > that I find extremely annoying about so many project websites are (1) > you have to go through multiple steps to get *any* idea about how the > software is licensed, and (2) when licensing information is given, it > tends to be inaccurately simple (because it is rarely the case that > licensing can be reduced to one license). A statement like Jan > suggests addresses both of these problems. > > Sadly, if it's a project I'm just finding out about, I don't trust the > mere statement that it's "open source", and even when that's a > reasonably accurate statement it isn't specific enough to be helpful > to people who care about these things. > > - Richard > _______________________________________________ > Board mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board _______________________________________________ Board mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
