Opened 3 years ago

Closed 3 years ago

Last modified 3 years ago

#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.

Change History (15)

comment:1 Changed 3 years ago by juliandoucette

  • Owner set to juliandoucette

comment:2 follow-up: Changed 3 years ago by juliandoucette

What languages are we supporting?

comment:3 in reply to: ↑ 2 Changed 3 years ago 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 3 years ago 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 3 years ago 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 3 years ago 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 3 years ago by juliandoucette (previous) (diff)

comment:7 Changed 3 years ago 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 3 years ago 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 3 years ago 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 3 years ago by abpbot

comment:11 Changed 3 years ago by juliandoucette

  • Review URL(s) modified (diff)
  • Status changed from new to reviewing

comment:12 Changed 3 years ago by saroyanm

  • Sensitive unset

comment:13 Changed 3 years ago by juliandoucette

  • Priority changed from P1 to P2

comment:14 Changed 3 years ago by juliandoucette

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from reviewing to closed

comment:15 Changed 3 years ago by saroyanm

  • Cc athornburgh added
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.