styleguide icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
styleguide copied to clipboard

License clarification

Open mofojed opened this issue 3 years ago • 6 comments

The LICENSE file in the project says it's an Apache license, but in the README.md, it says:

The style guides in this project are licensed under the CC-By 3.0 License, which encourages you to share these documents. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ for more details.

This seems to conflict. What does the Apache license cover?

mofojed avatar Apr 15 '21 13:04 mofojed

My gut feeling is that we mean Apache for any code in this repo and that CC license for the documents. I'll ask for clarification internally.

gpshead avatar Apr 15 '21 17:04 gpshead

Any update on this?

marbre avatar Nov 23 '22 14:11 marbre

@shicks & @dseomn looks like you added the apache 2.0 LICENSE file to the styleguide repo in 2020. the existing README said creative commons. could you clarify this?

gpshead avatar Nov 23 '22 21:11 gpshead

If I remember correctly, I added the LICENSE file because I wanted to copy the pylint config file to https://github.com/dseomn/pepper-music-player/blob/main/third_party/google-styleguide/pylintrc following Google's guidelines for third_party imports. I don't think I knew about that line in README.md at the time. But it's also been a while and I'm not sure how accurate those memories are.

dseomn avatar Nov 23 '22 21:11 dseomn

The initial README added with commit https://github.com/google/styleguide/commit/51ce2f41175fdf95258fc82dad31eeb02daf8931 committed on May 20, 2015 refers to CC-BY-3.0 https://github.com/google/styleguide/blob/51ce2f41175fdf95258fc82dad31eeb02daf8931/README.md?plain=1#L9 whereas the Apache-2.0 license was added with commit https://github.com/google/styleguide/commit/f704c352f4f0597d2bd8b85d089b093946ff75d7 on Jan 3, 2020.

So I assume that files initially added before commit https://github.com/google/styleguide/commit/f704c352f4f0597d2bd8b85d089b093946ff75d7 from Jan 3, 2020 is licensed unter CC-BY-3.0 as it seems there was no explicit re-licensing or dual-licensing action. However, IANAL! A short statement / clarification from Google's lawyers would be appreciated.

marbre avatar Jan 11 '24 12:01 marbre

你好,你的邮件已收到,我会尽快回复。祝你工作顺利,生活愉快!

JaphyFan avatar Jan 11 '24 12:01 JaphyFan