[License-discuss] license information improvement project - now with a mockup!
luis at lu.is
Thu Nov 7 16:39:36 UTC 2013
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Brian Behlendorf <brian at behlendorf.com>wrote:
> Nice start! Quick comments, all in humble opinion which is why I didn't
> make edits directly...
> - Any suggestions on the presentation of the information? i.e., is simple
>> bold headings OK? Should we do some fancy table thing instead? Do you
>> like/dislike the ": Information" and ": License Text" I added to the <h1>
> I think it should be clearly visually distinct from the text of the
> license itself, say in a different box with a different background color,
> just to make it clear to the first-time reader within a few seconds that
> this metadata is not the text of the license. The table of contents for
> the license and the text of the license should be more closely visually
> aligned than this metadata.
This sort of finetuning probably needs to happen on opensource.org (drupal)
rather than wiki.opensource.org (dokuwiki) just because of the differences
in stylesheets, etc., etc.
Speaking of that: is it possible for someone skilled in Drupal to advise
how we could make a "license" template that would handle this
automagically, instead of requiring hand-crafted HTML in each page?
> - Any comments on what information is/isn't presented? (If you must have
>> extensive discussion of the existing categories or the
>> desirability/possibility of getting more objective information, please
>> change the email subject header :)
> A link to both the submission and the notes from the board meeting where
> the license was approved would seem good.
The board meeting notes, in every case that I'm aware of, are pretty
uninformative- they simply say approved/not approved. I'm open to
persuasion on this point, I suppose, but I'm inclined to see it as
> The link to "license category" should go straight to the license category
> page, not to the proliferation committee report. On that page, each
> license category really should get the description/criteria for that
> category, rather than making the reader read through the report or guess
> from the list of licenses in each category to understand what the
> categories mean.
Yes, fair point re the categories page. That said, the description/criteria
for the categories weren't exactly written with these uses in mind. :/ If
someone wanted to take a pass at editing them into something usable for the
purpose, I'd be open to that...
> - Obviously this information will not all be available for all licenses.
>> In those cases, should we simply omit reference to the information, or
>> should we say something like "Canonical text: the canonical text is no
>> longer available" or "OSI discussion: this license was approved before
>> OSI's current mail archive system, and so the discussion is no longer
>> available"? I think the latter.
> The latter, though it would be really good to dig up archives and post
> them, perhaps specifically board meeting minutes where the licenses were
Yes, I do want to be aggressive about digging up the old records.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss