Hi On 27 May 2016 at 11:16, Devin Ulibarri <devin@ulibarri.website> wrote:
> On 05/27/2016 09:03 AM, Dave Crossland wrote: > > > > On 27 May 2016 at 08:59, Devin Ulibarri <devin@ulibarri.website > > <mailto:devin@ulibarri.website>> wrote: > > > > Notice from the ethics article that one big deal with GitHub is it > > allows developers to upload code without a license (thus being > > proprietary by default, even though we can all see the code). > > > > > > I don't think a default libre license would be wise; for a start, which > > one? > > I think the idea is to have options that someone may choose from (like > the way media goblin lists options for copyright licenses when you > upload a file). Each option could (should) have a description of the > license and links to the original license text. > They already do this; they recently added GPLv3 to the list, although they refuse to add the SIL Open Font License because fonts projects are such a tiny fraction of all projects :( > And, yes, MediaGoblin does allow for "all rights reserved" or "custom" > license, so I imagine that GitHub could make some accordances for this. Does MediaGoblin apply a license by default, if you don't select one? > > Licensing is serious stuff and I think its self-defeating for the > movement to make people less conscious of it by offering easy defaults :) > > Licensing **really is** serious stuff and that is exactly why people > need to choose their license when they post their work publicly. > > Having no license, if someone accidentally downloads and uses the code > without express permission, since the default US copyright law would > have it "All Rights Reserved" it puts the people who have access to the > code at risk of possible litigation (i.e. they could be sued later for > using the code). There's potential estoppel defences, but yes, I agree, that is bad. -- Cheers Dave
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel