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):

https://codereview.adblockplus.org/29350467/

Description

Background

As mentioned in #4263 we are planing to launch new website for Acceptable Ads project, after #4268 is ready we can have a basic setup upon which we can continue the development

What to change

Implement initail/basic CMS setup with required directory structure and settings.ini file.

Attachments (0)

Change History (15)

comment:1 Changed on 07/28/2016 at 04:19:13 PM by juliandoucette

  • Owner set to juliandoucette

comment:2 follow-up: Changed on 07/28/2016 at 05:20:28 PM by juliandoucette

What languages are we supporting?

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: 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?

Last edited on 08/08/2016 at 01:35:42 PM by juliandoucette

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

  1. I would not assume that the licence is the same
  2. "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

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

Add Comment

Modify Ticket

Change Properties
Action
as closed .
The resolution will be deleted. Next status will be 'reopened'.
to The owner will be changed from juliandoucette.
 
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.