On Dec 4, 9:53 am, mikelietz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I digress. In its address is 'habariproject.org' and that, to a
> quick glance, makes it appear to be official Habari code and as such
> would be subject to the Habari license (and its associated
> compatibilities and whatnot). Again, this is purely at a quick glance
> and I'm sure there are lots of counter examples, but I think that a
> project's license should extend to all parts of it. I'm not saying
> people can't code with whatever license they want to use, I'm just
> saying that if they want said code to appear on -extras, they should
> follow the established guidelines. Otherwise they can use other
> repositories and storage, as many people already do.
>
That's a very salient point, and to which I might add, currently we
also give extra's committers access to branches. If they aren't fully
cognizant of our licensing were we to allow any license in extras,
they may not know they can't use certain licensed code in a branch,
which would make our life even more difficult in reviewing code.
I understand that Chris's call to a vote was not about licenses, but I
don't think that's practical under the circumstances.
If I were pressed to vote now on what I understand, I'd echo Matthias
and vote -1 on the original vote of making -extras general repo; thus:
+1 on
allowing only ASL or ASL-compatible code.
What I do hope that comes from this is an expedited movement to expand
hp.o so that developers that create plugins/themes that are not
compatible with our license could still list and promote their work
via our official site, so that users still could have a single place
to browse the ever growing list of plugins and themes.
~miklb
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
