-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 108
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
Missing license #53
Comments
Updated my issue in Redmine about contributing guidelines (https://redmine.ixsystems.com/issues/27829) to cover licences as well. Quite a few FreeNAS repos have the same issue as this one; no clear licence and thus contributing and re-use are ambiguous at present. Feel free to lend support there since GitHub issues don't tend to be used. |
Thanks for the feedback. I filed the same issue on Redmine as well, since I couldn't work out which issue repository is being used: https://redmine.ixsystems.com/issues/58779 If issues here aren't being used, an admin should just disable them. |
Indeed, I think this issue tracker is just one that perhaps got missed from being turned off. Hopefully the licences can get stored out -- it's definitely a concern of mine as I'd like to contribute (and reuse the code!). |
Hi, I'll add the License in a while, it is under BSD 2 clause. |
Okey, I want to explain something: Is this arbitrary? most of this is, yes. |
@Ornias1993 I've read this a few times and either don't understand some legal term or something was lost in translation. Do you mean "obvious"? If not, could you please point me to something about arbitrary code copyright? I've searched and couldn't find anything, but it may be that it's dependent on jurisdiction. In any event, the problem with this logic is I need to read the code before I can determine whether it's "arbitrary" or not. If it turns out not to be, I've now tainted things. So, it's far safer just not to look at code without a license since it's not open source software. |
It has nothing to do with code... But yes: Arbitrary/Obvious... I think this is a good quote that would lead to a mere config file not passing the Originality treshhold:
And no, for the most part that isn't dependent on jurisdiction.
Since when do you need a licence to look at something that is published? You don't! You can't be sued just because your code looks similar, that has been tried and voided by the courts many times. There is a HIGH burden of proof on the plaintiff to prove you have willingly and significantly copied his copyrighted code, in such a way that it's a violation of copyright. Simply put:
|
If it's an open source project, it should have an open source license. Simply put:
The number of FreeNAS plugins, community or official, is astonishingly small. Rather than attack people looking to contribute, maybe the barriers to entry should be addressed. If this is such a non-issue, applying a license would do no harm and be of trivial effort. |
It looks like all the unofficial plugins are being migrated to Community Plugins Organization. |
This project doesn't appear to have a license attached to it, which unfortunately means it's not freely available for use by default. I don't know if you can or event want to impose a license on 3rd party contributions at this time, since each contributor would need to sign off a re-license, but it would be nice if the template files had a license.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: