4 ms·
Previous member of PrivacyTools (before the split) here. I have personally found it sad that they relicensed from CC0 for both content and code to CC-BY-ND 4.0
by dawidpotocki 3y ago
Previous member of PrivacyTools (before the split) here.
I have personally found it sad that they relicensed from CC0 for both content and code to CC-BY-ND 4.0 for content and MIT for code. I don't mind MIT, but CC-BY-ND? How am I supposed to contribute to a NoDerivatives project?
> I agree to grant Privacy Guides a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free, irrevocable license with the right to sublicense such rights through multiple tiers of sublicensees, to reproduce, modify, display, perform, relicense, and distribute my contribution as part of this project.
Also when contributing, you have to agree to relicensing by them.
I wouldn't have contributed if that was a case back then.
- jonaharagon 3y ago> How am I supposed to contribute to a NoDerivatives project? I don’t understand this question, like literally how? The process has not changed. The FSF recommends CC BY-ND for works which state a viewpoint (opinion) to avoid being misquoted. To distribute a modified version of the website would misrepresent the authors who wrote it, which would serve no useful purpose.
- dawidpotocki 3y ago> I don’t understand this question, like literally how? The process has not changed. IANAL but the licence prevents me from modifying it, which means that I'm not allowed to make any changes, not matter what. Me making a PR would be me breaking the licence. > The FSF recommends CC BY-ND for works which state a viewpoint (opinion) to avoid being misquoted. And FSF is silly in many ways. Who would you be misquoted by? Also misquoting is illegal if it was done with malice, just like how breaking licence terms is illegal. And keep in mind that to prevent either, you need to be ready to go to court :).