4 ms·

...but it is only visible if you are logged in. That inconsistency is a little weird.

by infodroid 10y ago

shakeel_mohamed 10y ago
This seems very odd, I wonder if it's a bug or by design
- SpaceManiac 10y ago
  I'm gonna guess it's temporary; I get the impression GitHub likes to test its changes before it releases them (I've been seeing the announced license indicator for several days), and that probably goes extra for logged-out users.
  - lorenzhs 10y ago
    Yeah, I have been seeing it for a few weeks now and was actually looking for an announcement - I thought it was a bit weird when I didn't find one. The indicator not being shown for non-logged in users is probably just a consequence of a staged rollout.
    - tomschlick 10y ago
      Yeah I'm guessing they just turned it on for 100% and haven't removed the feature flag yet which hides it from logged out users.
masklinn 10y ago
And as with many other information (such as the bloody fucking search) it's only taking in account the repository's main branch and ignoring all others, if you decide to relicense in a branch for some reason that will not be displayed by github.
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  What would you prefer GitHub do? Display multiple licenses? I see that situation as not really solvable.
  - tetrep 10y ago
    Why not apply the same solution already applied to branches? Have a drop down that lists the different branches and their licenses, with it sorted such that the branches with different licenses are displayed first.
    - dominotw 10y ago
      I would think that would be UI overload for such an edge case.
  - masklinn 10y ago
    > What would you prefer GitHub do? The license of the currently selected branch?
    - SamBam 10y ago
      This seems like a pretty niche problem. Maybe in your ecosystem this is common, but I work in OSS and haven't seen this yet. In all cases with more "complex licensing," you need to see the project's own license file. GitHub's little UI icon isn't legally-binding in any way. It's just a simple UI addition that works in the vast majority of cases. In a Google search for "git branch different license," I don't see anyone else discussing licensing their projects this way. I'm not saying it isn't valid, it just seems really rare. Your proposed solution wouldn't necessarily work for the (much more common, in my experience) situation where some branches, like deployment branches, omit the license all together. In those situations, those branches are typically under the same license as the main project. (As always, though, the final word should be in the project's license file.)
      - barneybooroo 10y ago

...but it is only visible if you are logged in. That inconsistency is a little weird.

shakeel_mohamed 10y ago

This seems very odd, I wonder if it's a bug or by design

SpaceManiac 10y ago
I'm gonna guess it's temporary; I get the impression GitHub likes to test its changes before it releases them (I've been seeing the announced license indicator for several days), and that probably goes extra for logged-out users.
- lorenzhs 10y ago
  Yeah, I have been seeing it for a few weeks now and was actually looking for an announcement - I thought it was a bit weird when I didn't find one. The indicator not being shown for non-logged in users is probably just a consequence of a staged rollout.
  - tomschlick 10y ago
    Yeah I'm guessing they just turned it on for 100% and haven't removed the feature flag yet which hides it from logged out users.

masklinn 10y ago

And as with many other information (such as the bloody fucking search) it's only taking in account the repository's main branch and ignoring all others, if you decide to relicense in a branch for some reason that will not be displayed by github.

jsmthrowaway 10y ago
What would you prefer GitHub do? Display multiple licenses? I see that situation as not really solvable.
- tetrep 10y ago
  Why not apply the same solution already applied to branches? Have a drop down that lists the different branches and their licenses, with it sorted such that the branches with different licenses are displayed first.
  - dominotw 10y ago
    I would think that would be UI overload for such an edge case.
- masklinn 10y ago
  > What would you prefer GitHub do? The license of the currently selected branch?
  - SamBam 10y ago
    This seems like a pretty niche problem. Maybe in your ecosystem this is common, but I work in OSS and haven't seen this yet. In all cases with more "complex licensing," you need to see the project's own license file. GitHub's little UI icon isn't legally-binding in any way. It's just a simple UI addition that works in the vast majority of cases. In a Google search for "git branch different license," I don't see anyone else discussing licensing their projects this way. I'm not saying it isn't valid, it just seems really rare. Your proposed solution wouldn't necessarily work for the (much more common, in my experience) situation where some branches, like deployment branches, omit the license all together. In those situations, those branches are typically under the same license as the main project. (As always, though, the final word should be in the project's license file.)
    - barneybooroo 10y ago