User content is also content, thus yes.

Good question. Maybe also related to L2.

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

In T15322#15031, @aklapper wrote:

+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.

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

+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.

Hoping to be useful we can self-document this joining this group:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In T15322#11590, @valerio.bozzolan wrote:

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

Just tested the GitHub OAuth and I can confirm that it works perfectly, thanks! :)

I've enabled OAUTH using Github.

sorry for removing Governance, the editor somehow bugged and i can't use 2 tags at once here :(.

We've sort of reached a status-quo:

• Trusted Contributors is basically "community members" - with a low bar for entry
• Blessed Committers is the next level up, and can basically push whatever code they want
• admin/root/security is basically "core team".

In T15206#5910, @valerio.bozzolan wrote:

In T15206#5663, @avivey wrote:

Looks like it's @chris that controls phorgelabs.

Also thank you @chris for setting yourself as a public user here https://github.com/orgs/phorgelabs/people so people can understand this

Whereas it would be nice for me to understand this duplication

In T15206#5663, @avivey wrote:

Looks like it's @chris that controls phorgelabs.

I think @Matthew could set the related user as a public one from https://github.com/orgs/phorgeit/people so it's more obvious to other people, and so we kill the need of extra/external team documentation

@avivey using your Google and GitHub accounts create OAuth supports. You first need to unlock Auth modifications to Auth.

Checked using Incognito window, the default time is UTC and 24 hours format.