Opened on 07/27/2016 at 04:01:11 PM
Closed on 11/09/2016 at 11:48:44 AM
Last modified on 01/30/2017 at 10:06:30 AM
#4269 closed change (fixed)
Create a CMS based basic setup for new Acceptable Ads website
Reported by: | saroyanm | Assignee: | juliandoucette |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | P2 | Milestone: | |
Module: | Websites | Keywords: | |
Cc: | jnink, Kai, jobp, athornburgh | Blocked By: | #4268 |
Blocking: | #4263 | Platform: | Unknown / Cross platform |
Ready: | yes | Confidential: | no |
Tester: | Unknown | Verified working: | no |
Review URL(s): |
Description
Attachments (0)
Change History (15)
comment:1 Changed on 07/28/2016 at 04:19:13 PM by juliandoucette
- Owner set to juliandoucette
comment:3 in reply to: ↑ 2 Changed on 07/29/2016 at 09:23:51 AM by saroyanm
Replying to juliandoucette:
What languages are we supporting?
For the initial setup "En" should be enough, we will add more languages afterward.
comment:4 follow-up: ↓ 5 Changed on 08/05/2016 at 05:28:11 PM by juliandoucette
I think we should have a Licence section in our README.
- Do you agree?
- Should the website content be licensed differently then the website source code?
- If so, how should I communicate this?
comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 4 Changed on 08/08/2016 at 09:04:05 AM by saroyanm
Replying to juliandoucette:
I think we should have a Licence section in our README.
- Do you agree?
- Should the website content be licensed differently then the website source code?
- If so, how should I communicate this?
We were usually were having license in the template files and JS files for website projects, also it doesn't look like that we are having Licence information in any other repository.
comment:6 Changed on 08/08/2016 at 01:30:54 PM by juliandoucette
- Cc jnink Kai added
@saroyanm
- Yes, we have been putting licence headers on all source files
- Yes, we have not been putting any other licence information inside other websites repositories
I believe that the standard practice is:
- A sentence about the licence in README (not required, but recommended)
- A LICENCE or COPYING file that contains the full licence text (not required, but recommended)
- Licence headers in all source code files (not required, but recommended)
- A copyright notice in the footer of the website about the licence of the website content (not required, but recommended)
I was asking if we should include a sentence about the licence of the source code and the copy in the README.
EG:
LICENCE
- Source code in this repository is licence GPL-3.0
- The text content in this repository is licence CC BY-ND 4.0
@jnink
I hope that the info and example I provided in this comment clears things up.
I think that we should do everything that I listed under "I believe that the standard practice is:". Do you agree?
Also, you mentioned that we should release the content as Creative Commons, but you did not specify which creative commons licence. I guessed that you meant CC BY-ND 4.0. Is that what you meant?
comment:7 Changed on 08/08/2016 at 01:40:28 PM by jnink
@juliandoucette
"I think that we should do everything that I listed under "I believe that the standard practice is:". Do you agree?"
I agree.
"I guessed that you meant CC BY-ND 4.0. Is that what you meant"
Sorry, I don't know. I only saw, that https://acceptableads.org/ is stating that some content is licensed under the Creative Commons License and linked to: https://creativecommons.org/. There is no link to a version
comment:8 Changed on 08/08/2016 at 01:54:15 PM by saroyanm
I was asking if we should include a sentence about the licence of the source code and the copy in the README.
We do not doing that it in other repositories, but if you feel like it make sense to mention also in the Readme file, fine with me.
comment:9 Changed on 08/08/2016 at 02:01:39 PM by juliandoucette
- Cc jobp added
Sorry, I don't know. I only saw, that https://acceptableads.org/ is stating that some content is licensed under the Creative Commons License and linked to: https://creativecommons.org/. There is no link to a version
- I would not assume that the licence is the same
- "Creative Commons" is not a licence
- As a result, the existing copyright notice on acceptableads.org is not correct, isn't it?
@jobp do you know anything about this?
comment:10 Changed on 09/07/2016 at 06:19:46 PM by abpbot
A commit referencing this issue has landed:
Issue 4269 - Create a CMS based basic setup for new Acceptable Ads website
comment:11 Changed on 09/08/2016 at 01:30:51 PM by juliandoucette
- Review URL(s) modified (diff)
- Status changed from new to reviewing
comment:12 Changed on 09/15/2016 at 02:51:42 PM by saroyanm
- Sensitive unset
comment:13 Changed on 10/08/2016 at 12:15:26 PM by juliandoucette
- Priority changed from P1 to P2
comment:14 Changed on 11/09/2016 at 11:48:44 AM by juliandoucette
- Resolution set to fixed
- Status changed from reviewing to closed
comment:15 Changed on 01/30/2017 at 10:06:30 AM by saroyanm
- Cc athornburgh added
What languages are we supporting?