Michael Renzmann wrote: > > Agreed. But that would become effective only for such hacks which are > uploaded AFTER that rule has been published. How to deal with existing > hacks that have no license attached? >
If we can make a decision on what the default license would be, would the 'accept these terms' page become an enhancement for the TracHacksMacro [1]? As for existing hacks, I've found it possible to get in touch with the author about half the time, and many already have licenses attached. With the way stuff gets deprecated over time I don't think it wouldn't be a huge issue, but I think its important to have a policy in place going forward and to document what was discussed here somewhere on t-h.o, such as in [2]. I like Anatoly's suggestion of marking plugins as proprietary / no license were appropriate. [1] http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/NewHackMacro [2] http://trac-hacks.org/wiki/AdoptingHacks -- View this message in context: http://th-users.32086.n3.nabble.com/Plugins-with-no-license-attached-tp2530297p2558976.html Sent from the th-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ th-users mailing list th-users@lists.trac-hacks.org https://lists.trac-hacks.org/mailman/listinfo/th-users
