<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I spoke to Ben about the issue in DC in May. I continue to advocate for at least a GITHUB requirement to include which open source license the code is under in the meta data for those projects self identified as "open source". He promised to continue to do the same advocacy within GITHUB - this is his incremental effort.<div><br></div><div>Ben told me that an early effort at GITHUB to do the same (offer a pull down of OSS licenses) netting a lot of complaints from projects whose license was not included, and they withdrew the option.<br><div><br></div><div>For what it's worth, this is the note I received from his this morning after he posted:</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br></div><div>Deborah -<div><br></div><div>Not sure if you saw it already, but wanted to make sure you saw about <a href="http://choosealicense.com/">choosealicense.com</a></div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://github.com/blog/1530-choosing-an-open-source-license">https://github.com/blog/1530-choosing-an-open-source-license</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>The site itself is open source, so we hope it will be a community-collaborated resource, and the licenses, once added, make their way into a license-picker dropdown on <a href="http://github.com/">GitHub.com</a>, available any time you create a new repository.</div><div><br></div><div>Decidedly a baby step, but hope that by making things easier, we can encourage the community to properly license their code.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers and open source,</div><div>- Ben</div></div></blockquote><div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div apple-content-edited="true">
<div><div style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue'; "><b>Deb Bryant</b></div></div>
</div>
<br><div><div>On Jul 15, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Gervase Markham <<a href="mailto:gerv@mozilla.org">gerv@mozilla.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">On 15/07/13 19:04, Bruno F. Souza wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">So, basically, they are saying you can fork the repository, but you<br>don't have any rights to "reproduce or create derivative works".<br>Seems directly contradictory...<br></blockquote><br>It's not contradictory - normally, no license means no reproduction, but<br>if you are on Github, then you've given everyone that right (so, in a<br>sense, you do have a licence).<br><br>However, it's not contradictory, but it is dumb - because what's the<br>point of being able to "view and fork" a repository if you don't have<br>the right to make derivative works? Or distribute them to others?<br><br>(Or it could be that that's not a full summary of what the Github<br>licence allows.)<br><br>Gerv<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Board-plus mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Board-plus@opensource.org">Board-plus@opensource.org</a><br>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/board-plus<br>_______________________________________________<br>Board mailing list<br>Board@opensource.org<br>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/board<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>