Ah thank you, I'm very happy to be wrong. I checked a several commits but
didn't think to look at PRs.
Changes made to gwt-site do not go through gerrit, but through github since
late 2014, though the CLA bot does still track it.
I had already gone through the list of committers who made changes to
markdown that were more than 5 lines in total and narrowed that list to
only ones who didn't have a CLA on gwt-review.googlesource.com, but it
turns out that list of ~38 people must have signed the CLA in some other
way. I'll recheck the PRs those committers were involved in to confirm, but
it sounds like we just need to clarify the license directly, since the CLA
gives us (well, Google technically) the right to do that.
As Google is winding down their direct involvement in the project, the CLA
bot will be turned off soon, and we'll want to be sure we have an
explicitly license in all projects that covers contributions, but so far
this was the only project deficient in this way - and the only project not
covered by gerrit.
Thanks again for finding my mistake.
On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 3:40:42 AM UTC-5 Jens wrote:
> Haven't all changes been made through gerrit and did require a CLA?
>
> --J.
>
> Colin Alworth schrieb am Donnerstag, 21. April 2022 um 17:34:49 UTC+2:
>
>> See the question raised at
>> https://github.com/gwtproject/gwt-site/issues/328.
>>
>> While gwtproject explicitly licenses all "software and sample code" as
>> under the Apache License 2.0, it appears that we don't have a license
>> specified for the contents of the gwtproject website (
>> https://gwtproject.org, https://github.com/gwtproject/gwt-site/). A case
>> could be made that the content is already licensed as under the same
>> license. It was my understanding that this is discouraged (though at the
>> moment I'm having a hard time seeing why that would be). I can find
>> concrete examples of the Apache Foundation licensing their documentation
>> under the Apache License
>> * https://github.com/apache/couchdb-documentation
>> * https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs
>>
>> On the other hand, if the Apache license that applies to all code and
>> samples does not apply to the contents, then each author owns their own
>> content directly.
>>
>> I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that (at least in the country
>> in which I reside) content is copyrighted by default, and the author owns
>> that copyright. Additional rights must be granted by the author. If we want
>> to change the license, we need the approval of the authors so far -
>> https://github.com/gwtproject/gwt-site/graphs/contributors. Anyone who
>> doesn't approve would need to have their content removed, if we decide to
>> change.
>>
>> Are we sufficiently clear that all content is Apache licensed, including
>> the website documentation? Is there a good reason to consider a different
>> license instead? Should we seek confirmation from any authors of
>> substantial amounts of content that their content falls under the license
>> we choose?
>>
>> My suggestion is to clarify that all content is under the Apache License,
>> and see a confirmation from any author who wrote more than ~5 lines of
>> content. If we think we are already clear that all content is under that
>> license, then we should state that in an up front way, such as setting the
>> "license" metadata of the gwt-site repo, and adding a LICENSE file.
>>
>> Thoughts, suggestions, pointers to how other projects have handled this?
>>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT
Contributors" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to google-web-toolkit-contributors+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/5a00b0b9-fb6b-48c1-a6c9-156908ba3dean%40googlegroups.com.
