Hi, I would still highly advise putting it into git, because * it's easier to discover by others, code search, etc * it is far easier to propose changes, discuss them, track who submitted what, etc * it is easier to fork to try different things, and for others to see your forks and possibly adapt them too
At the end of the day, wiki is a front end to a simple version control system, whereas git is what most developers are used to nowadays. I have done a lot of "on-wiki" coding, and unless there are very good reasons to keep it on wiki, it is far better to store it in repo. Plus you wouldn't have the licensing questions :) As for license - you could put at the top that "this code is MIT licensed to remove ambiguity, but IANAL. My understanding is that by default, all content is licensed as whatever it said at the bottom. On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:14 AM, SwiftFast <swiftf...@gmx.com> wrote: > I have a bot[1]. I'd like to publish its scripts. A versioning system > like GIT would be overkill, because the scripts are short and rarely > changing. > > I'm not a lawyer, and I have some questions: > > 1. Suppose I don't state any license, would that implicitly the same > license of the wiki itself?[2] > > 2. Can I explicitly state a license such as MIT/Apache/GPL? Would any > of those licenses conflict with the license of the Wiki itself? > > Thanks! > > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:SwiftFast#SwiftFast_bot > [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wiki_content_license > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
