-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 23.02.2011 11:13, wrote RjOllos: > 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]?
This would certainly be first choice, but should be documented in the wiki elsewhere too, a you write later on too. > 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]. Totally agree, especially same experience with author contacts here. I think I've encountered just one or two projects without any trace of a license. > I like Anatoly's suggestion of marking plugins as proprietary / no license > were appropriate. I think loud here too: Publishing my project here at t-h.o as the author is most likely, if not death sure, done with the goal to allow others to use it as well, at least as it is. Since Open Source is about joint development, forking of projects, etc. it is certainly reasonable to assume, that this is allowed as well for any project at t-h.o . Otherwise where is the point of uploading source code to a repository? Should be fairly easy to remove pointers and documentation to externally hosted projects, where this is not so clear. Another aspect is, that the license must be compatible with Trac's own license. If it's not clear, the code is not useful for anyone but the author and just wasting space at t-h.o to praise his/her glorious programming skills. I think it's too much to establish a "safest policy" by just flagging proprietary/removing stuff, or I have not the same understanding of what it means to you. If an author takes care, he/she will attach a license. If not, he/she'll certainly (definitely?) not feel more concerned about (re-)use and development of that code, as long as appropriate credit is granted. A default policy could be as easy as "in doubt it's the same as Trac", if the author doesn't take care enough about copyright issues to expressively restrict use of his/her published code. As the Debian project with known advocates for FOSS seems to be fine with the BSD license, I rest in peace too. :-) Steffen Hoffmann -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1lZpgACgkQ31DJeiZFuHcLgACgxJsPdaAVnkAyUEaQMXCWThOl XXkAni3avBWXr0RlemlMCAhiJjNYC0Xu =nsIu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ th-users mailing list th-users@lists.trac-hacks.org https://lists.trac-hacks.org/mailman/listinfo/th-users
