Page MenuHomePhorge

Footer: specify a default Libre license for Phorge contents
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

The website https://we.phorge.it/ has not a footer with a default license, and this is a problem since as default the contents are technically "all rights reserved by respective authors", and so it means that collaboration is not legally enabled.

Proposal 0: CC BY-SA and Apache 2.0

Content licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC-BY-SA) unless otherwise noted; code licensed under Apache 2.0 or other open source licenses.

This phrase is exactly the one taken from the footer of https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/ but adapted for Apache 2.0.

The CC BY-SA is the same license of Wikipedia and StackOverflow and may be very reasonable as default for contents and images.

The Apache 2.0 is indeed also useful as default for code snippets, to mitigate copyright nightmares and have maximum compatibility with Phorge.

Proposal 1: CC BY-SA

Public content is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0.

This phrase is shorter and it's the same thing that StackOverflow does: covering everything by CC BY-SA 4.0.

Cons: it may be inconvenient to handle software snippets with a license designed for contents. Also, this default is probably not directly compatible with Apache 2.0, since the Apache 2.0 is less strict.

How to

An Administrator is needed to go here:

https://we.phorge.it/config/edit/ui.footer-items/

And set this:

[
  {
    "name": "Content licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC-BY-SA) unless otherwise noted; code licensed under Apache 2.0 or other open source licenses."
  },
  {
    "name": "CC BY-SA 4.0",
    "href": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed"
  },
  {
    "name": "Apache 2.0",
    "href": "https://we.phorge.it/source/phorge/browse/master/LICENSE"
  }
]

Event Timeline

valerio.bozzolan triaged this task as High priority.
valerio.bozzolan created this object in space S1 Public.

What is being referred to as "Public Contents"? Wiki documentation? Diviner documentation? Ponder questions/answers? Other than those I'm not sure that should apply.

Yeah. Maybe also test plans etc.

Note that we can somehow use L2 Contributor Agreement (UNDER CONSTRUCTION) as a tool to clarify this release

Uhm. Have we any idea about how to unlock this situation?

Maybe we can have an #RFC tag, that, after a couple of months, could be declared as "Seen, Accepted".

valerio.bozzolan raised the priority of this task from High to Unbreak Now!.EditedJul 6 2023, 09:26

Since I am not currently authorized to make changes on other people's code from comments or Differential and I don't want to be vulnerable to copyright trolling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_troll

@valerio.bozzolan I think you're confusing this task ("website content") and T15121 (contributor agreement).

At the moment, if somebody makes a comment in the website with a creative snippet, that is "all rights reserved" from that author. Same on Differential, since volatile patches can be somehow considered as out of the repository.

I don't think we need a footer as long as the one here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/

But yes, not having a default license in the footer is a critical problem from my point of view. Honestly is a serious reason to discontinue contributions in - for example - the Phriction wiki, soon and move to Wikibooks or something else, with a strong copyright framework.

yeah, well, we still can't afford legal advice. If some funded organization is willing to donate some, we'll appreciate it.

It's all a matter of risks after all. Keeping everything as-is ("all rights reserved") just increases risks for every contributor, including Administrators.

The solution for me is: stop contributing in this website, to avoid to be sued by you or by any other contributor because I violated their copyright (please don't - you have some chances to win).

As mitigation, I wrote on my profile that all my contributions are in CC BY-SA and Apache 2.0, so instead, who copy my contributions from comments, or who edit Phriction after me, does not have any copyright risk from me.

If it's urgent, we can apply a strict CLA now (basically copy Phacility), and soften it later, once we've had legal counsel.

( The CLA → https://secure.phabricator.com/L28 )

Yeah just replacing "Phacility" with "Phorge.it contributors" may be sufficient for a reasonable period until we have something else.

I like the definition of "Contributions" that is quite broad.

If the majority of us sign it, that would justify a mention of the default Apache 2.0 in the footer. This would also help Wikimedia volunteers to upload screenshots of Phorge to Wikimedia Commons, avoiding annoying deletion procedures for the lack of the license in the very same page etc.

This would also help Wikimedia volunteers to upload screenshots of Phorge to Wikimedia Commons, avoiding annoying deletion procedures for the lack of the license in the very same page etc.

[off-topic] I don't see a relation. Screenshots of free software (not: content rendered by that software also depicted on a screenshot) have the same license as the free software itself. Thus Phorge/Phab screenshots on Wikimedia Commons must be under Apache License Version 2.0. (Though some folks on Commons do it wrong.)

Public contents are in Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC-BY-SA) and Apache 2.0 unless otherwise noted.

Content is not in something, rather it's licensed under.

Anyway, what does that proposal imply exactly? That all and any public content is dual-licensed? I'd highly recommend not to do that, otherwise you'll need a lawyer for sure.
Does we.phorge.it really blend content and code so much that it justifies dual-licensing?
If not differentiating these two licenses by code versus by other content, then it's unclear if these two are compatible. For a random example, GPLv3 and BY-SA 4.0 are only one-way compatible.
Also, CC licenses apart from CC0 are discouraged for software code due to distribution aspects.

I'd much much rather differentiate by code (Apache License 2.0) and by other content (CC-BY-SA 4.0 international), plus always provide links to these licenses.

Thanks @aklapper, feel free to edit the Task description according to your proposal.

Content is not in something, rather it's licensed under.

OK thanks. FYI in Italian, people can often put random pronouns and it sounds often very OK e.g. "Materiale in licenza" is very frequent here and there. But I will do my best to learn this.

+1 for CC BY-SA 4.0 International for content (text, images, etc) and Apache 2.0 for code.

Updated to reflect some tips from comments. Also added some "Pro / Cons"

Public contents are released in Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0.

This makes me wonder which criteria make something "public" and non-public, why the "Public" was added, and why there is a "release" instead of a "license", and what "released" [does not] mean[s] exactly in legal language (cf. the term "distribute" in GPL2 which was very problematic).

It would also create numerous problems if CC-BY-SA 4.0 was applied to code.

I don't remember but that was an attempt to do not release Passphrase credentials as CC BY-SA 4.0 :D :D

See e.g. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/release why to "license under" instead of "release in"

Thanks but I don't know where that typo is, so, feel free to fix

+1 on Content licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC-BY-SA) unless otherwise noted; code licensed under Apache 2.0 or other open source licenses.

How to proceed? Getting more Trusted Contributors in to comment?

Yes. I think we should wait for a kind Administrator to implement the first one.

We had 8 months of high-visibility and Unbreak Now! without changes.

+1 on Content licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC-BY-SA) unless otherwise noted; code licensed under Apache 2.0 or other open source licenses.

+1

Done.

Is it assumed that using the site will automatically license the user’s content under these, or should there be a line for that?

speck claimed this task.

Good question. Maybe also related to L2.

User content is also content, thus yes.