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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/36d93c6d-09d6-46c4-bfc6-86df8d8cc5abn%40googlegroups.com.
