-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 70
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Licencing exception similar to KiCad? #80
Comments
Definitely makes sense and lines up with my intention for the pool. |
I dropped @SchrodingersGat an email and will open a PR if I get a positive reply. Then, we'll have a concrete wording to discuss upon. For reference, my email:
|
Got a reply:
Which sounds good to me. The existence of the CLA implies that the presence of a licence for the pool alone would not be enough that all later contributions are under that licence as well. I don't know if we really need a fixed process at the current scale, though. |
Regarding my own contributions please just assume that mindset for this is public domain or CC0. So everybody should be able to use my stuff without shedding too much thought about it. I – however – would agree to the exception that the pool as a whole should not just be redistributable (i.e. selling it etc.) I like to get as much high quality contribution for the pool as possible. This means everything should be low friction, except those parts where a little of friction makes sense (e.g. quality control, making sure that we don't take stuff that is infringing on other intellectual properties etc). The license stuff should be clearly communicated and as frictionless as is practical. I like it, when projects have clear lists. For example with a headline like "I am a electrical engineer and I like to use parts of the pool in my project, what do I need to know?" and then you have a list of points. So in essence:
|
I think that the (now) current LICENSE.md is pretty clear in that regard and that it elaborates these points well. The licence is not all that complex after all. What, in your opinion, is missing there, that should be put in a licencing FAQ? |
No doubt about that. But I am somebody who is very aware of licenses not only in software. I think there might be people, who wouldn't necessarily draw this connection that easily. What I could imagine is to have some sort of "Wanna contribute? section, that just tells people:
I can remember times where I didn't really understand all that stuff and something like this clearly helps to clarify and set a nice tone. |
A contribution guide would indeed be very helpful. It could also take the form of a checklist (which could also be used for reviewing a PR). |
KiCad has an addition/exception to CC-BY-SA for its library licence:
I'm no expert in this field and cannot judge if/when such an exception is needed, but it makes sense to be able to use a Horizon-generated 3D model of a board (or even just a schematic printout) without the need for attribution of every single part author. While the number of contributors is still pretty small, it should be relatively easy to settle for something.
Personally, I'd tailor the wording of the KiCad licence to Horizon (given the KiCad licence author's permission), but keep the paragraph quoted above the same.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: