Missing License

[tudalex]

Missing a LICENSE file in the root repository folder that specifies the license of the website.

[maria]

I added the following license: https://github.com/rosedu/site/blob/master/LICENSE.md. If someone is against it or the License selected, please state your reason in a week's time.

cc-ing all the contributors @alexef @razvand @mariuscoto @flaviusanton @camelia-groza @tudalex @dserban @alrra @mgax @mihaimaruseac @alexandrujuncu @mihneadb @lauuuuuura @vilie @silviupopescu @vcarbune @adriansc @ddvlad

The image files below are licensed in a way that is not compatible with the license you are suggesting.

resources/promo/webdev_promo_banner.png
activities/images/activity_logo_webdev.png

[lauuuuuura]

@maria : why not BSD?

[maria]

@dserban so you are referring to

• https://github.com/rosedu/site/blob/master/activities/images/activity_logo_webdev.png
• https://github.com/rosedu/site/blob/master/resources/promo/webdev_promo_banner.png

OK, we will remove them and replace them with our artwork. thank you [ Done]

[maria]

@lauuuuuura I have to admit I didn't look into it. Here are more details http://choosealicense.com/licenses/ - I wanted a license more explicit and which defined that the work one does for the project will fall under the project license, due to the problems we had in the past. :) that makes sense?

[tudalex]

@maria if you want to be explicit about this, the only way of doing it is with a contributor license agreement (like the one you have to sign for contributing to Google OpenSource projects like Chromium or Android[0]) in which the contributor grants all copyrights to the Rosedu Association before working on a project.
This does not replace the usual BSD/GPL license, but complements it, because in this way there is only one author, ROSEdu, and if you later need to change something you don't have to get the agreement from everybody who worked on the project.

[0] - https://cla.developers.google.com/

[maria]

@tudalex 👍 Let's do this. Great idea

[mgax]

I also prefer a MIT/BSD license. Also, if you intend to relicense a codebase, you need explicit agreement from all contributors with significant contributions. Failing to answer within a week is not the same as explicit agreement.

[tudalex]

👍 @mgax
Not just significant, but all contributors! Also a contributor doesn't have to have a reason why he doesn't agree to a license.

I just right now realised that this is not a LICENSE proposal waiting to be merged, but was already merged! This is not nice! Just saying.

[maria]

@mgax @tudalex fair enough. I updated the License.md file, we will open a PR after we discuss.

I cc-ed every contributor here - #55 (comment). The week time is from a model we have in the Romanian legal department, where a decision can be questioned in a week time otherwise is accepted. This idea is from a previous discussion we had on email between the community members. And I think is helpful to not prolong this discussion indefinitely.

So, we have 3 votes for a BSD type of license, I think for projects like our websites we should have a more restrictive license and for other projects a BSD type (ex: rosedu challenge) and a CLA like @tudalex suggested.

[mgax]

Come to think of it, we're licensing content here so a creative commons licence is more appropriate. I propose CC-BY, again the most liberal, there's no reason to restrict people from using our text; they have to provide attribution anyway.

[maria]

@mgax is not only text it's a bit of code also. I think BSD (it's seems is the most popular) and we will create a CLA in the near future.

That sounds ok? There are still 2 days in the timeframe I suggested to get this done, so waiting for other feedback.

[maria]

This is the PR #70

[mgax]

@maria did we ever get licensing agreement from all contributors? E.g. I don't see @alexef or @razvand agreeing, and GitHub says they are the biggest contributors. And what's the point of making a pull request if you're going to approve it yourself within a minute?