getsolus
License monitoring files properly
monitoring files are new addition to repository. We should try to properly license them by adding SPDX license headers. We can contact all contributors if needed, as most of them are still active.
0BSD license specifically says about "software", I am not sure we can apply it to monitoring files. I see it more akin to appstream metainfo: a file accompanying a "software". I am more leaning to CC0-1.0. And the Copyright attributions probably something like: "Solus Developers".
Notes: I know the term "software" is very loose, just want to point out the difference.
List of people that contribute monitoring.files :
git log --all-match --grep monitoring.yml --no-merges | grep "Author" |awk '!seen[$0]++'
Author: Muhammad Alfi Syahrin <[email protected]>
Author: Algent Albrahimi <[email protected]>
Author: Thomas Staudinger <[email protected]>
Author: Reilly Brogan <[email protected]>
Author: Troy Harvey <[email protected]>
Author: Darren Christie <[email protected]>
Author: Rune Morling <[email protected]>
Author: Grzegorz Głowacz <[email protected]>
Author: uni-dos <[email protected]>
Author: Marcus Mellor <[email protected]>
Author: David Harder <[email protected]>
Author: A108384 <[email protected]>
Author: Nazar Stasiv <[email protected]>
Author: Lea Evers <[email protected]>
Author: Joey Riches <[email protected]>
Author: Silke Hofstra <[email protected]>
Author: Maik Wöhl <[email protected]>
Author: Evan Maddock <[email protected]>
Author: Domen Skamlic <[email protected]>
Author: Tracey Clark <[email protected]>
Author: antoine serveaux <[email protected]>
Author: chax <[email protected]>
Author: Jakob Gezelius <[email protected]>
Author: Justin <[email protected]>
0BSD license specifically says about "software", I am not sure we can apply it to monitoring files. I see it more akin to appstream metainfo: a file accompanying a "software". I am more leaning to CC0-1.0.
I very much doubt that these files are even copyrightable, so if we want to license them differently CC0 seems appropriate to me. It's probably also fine to use the repo LICENSE, see https://github.com/getsolus/packages/pull/4426.
And the Copyright attributions probably something like: "Solus Developers".
With CC0 you are allowed to do anything, so it doesn't really matter. I would just do 'Solus Project' for consistency.
I hereby consent to re-license to the CC0-1.0 license any monitoring.yml or monitoring.yaml files I have contributed to the Solus packages/ repository, with an informative attribution to the "Solus Project".
I hereby consent to re-license to the CC0-1.0 license any monitoring.yml or monitoring.yaml files I have contributed to the Solus packages/ repository, with an informative attribution to the "Solus Project".
I very much doubt that these files are even copyrightable, so if we want to license them differently CC0 seems appropriate to me.
That's what I thought.
It's probably also fine to use the repo LICENSE, see #4426.
With our repo license situtaion is still up in the air, I would like very much we get ahead of it with monitoring files. This can be a test bed for our inevitable relicensing of the repository. The list of contributor is small but not insignificant.
I imagine the process will be something like this:
- Contacting the contributors. (Email? Blogpost? Github?)
- Asking for consent (Need some template they can just answer and reply with)
- Documenting the consent (Consent needs to be archived)
- Implement the license change (Party time)
@ermo and @androidnisse are quite eager for the changes, I see.😅
For consistency as well CC0-1.0 would fit well as we use it for the metainfo files.
I hereby consent to re-license to the CC0-1.0 license any monitoring.yml or monitoring.yaml files I have contributed to the Solus packages/ repository, with an informative attribution to the "Solus Project".
BTW, should this issue be linked in the contributor roundup? Might be a good way to spread the news that we're trying to sort this out.
