Change docs link #57

New Issue

makeworld · 2021-04-07T16:06:02Z

makeworld commented

2021-04-07 16:06:02 +00:00

The pkg.go.dev link on the README doesn't work, because pkg.go.dev doesn't recognize the LICENSE file. Unless you want to try and reformat the LICENSE for it to be detected properly (maybe change the first line to match MIT), you can link to godocs.io instead. https://godocs.io/code.rocketnine.space/tslocum/cview

flowchartsman commented

2021-04-23 01:27:29 +00:00

I will clarify, that if both projects are using the MIT license (which they are), as far as the license is concerned, it is enough to simply add your copyright line to the original:

MIT License

Copyright (c) 2018 Oliver Kuederle
Copyright (c) 2020 Trevor Slocum <trevor@rocketnine.space>

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.

As for your detailed accounting of branch and merged commits, it doesn't serve much, since commits made on Github implicitly take on the license of the project they commit to "inbound==outbound". Since you are self-hosting, you may wish to add a note on this to CONTRIBUTING.md, and if you are feeling particularly generous, you can create a CONTRIBUTORS.md asking anyone making PRs to include their name in this file for the first PR they submit.

I will clarify, that if both projects are using the MIT license (which they are), as far as the license is concerned, it is enough to simply add your copyright line to the original: ``` MIT License Copyright (c) 2018 Oliver Kuederle Copyright (c) 2020 Trevor Slocum <trevor@rocketnine.space> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. ``` As for your detailed accounting of branch and merged commits, it doesn't serve much, since commits made on Github [implicitly](https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-of-service#6-contributions-under-repository-license) take on the license of the project they commit to "inbound==outbound". Since you are self-hosting, you may wish to add a note on this to `CONTRIBUTING.md`, and if you are feeling particularly generous, you can create a `CONTRIBUTORS.md` asking anyone making PRs to include their name in this file for the first PR they submit.

tslocum commented

2021-04-23 03:55:20 +00:00

Thanks for bringing this up. The cview documentation is self-hosted, the badge link should work. The pkg.go.dev link to package importers also seems to work. I would assume someone has since approved the modified license.

tslocum closed this issue

2021-04-23 03:55:20 +00:00

flowchartsman commented

2021-04-23 14:27:49 +00:00

https://pkg.go.dev/code.rocketnine.space/tslocum/cview

Still not parsing correctly. pkg.go.dev uses licensecheck to determine whether licenses are permissive/redistributable, and yours does register as MIT when I tested against the latest version of their library (though it does register twice, perhaps that's an issue?). It could be that the module for the lowest version of the current repo does not list the correct path, but I'm just guessing here.

In either case, there's little to be lost by trimming down your license file to the version I posted above and moving the relevant commit information to FORK.md (which is probably where it belongs anyway). Adding nonstandard text to license files is usually asking for trouble.

https://pkg.go.dev/code.rocketnine.space/tslocum/cview ![image](/attachments/9c3bfa7c-4fc8-496b-acde-24dbef0da367) Still not parsing correctly. pkg.go.dev uses [licensecheck](https://github.com/google/licensecheck) to determine whether licenses are permissive/redistributable, and yours does register as MIT when I tested against the latest version of their library (though it does register twice, perhaps that's an issue?). It could be that the module for the lowest version of the current repo does not list the correct path, but I'm just guessing here. In either case, there's little to be lost by trimming down your license file to the version I posted above and moving the relevant commit information to FORK.md (which is probably where it belongs anyway). Adding nonstandard text to license files is usually asking for trouble.

image.png

201 KiB

tslocum commented

2021-04-23 16:00:10 +00:00

Accessing cview documentation via pkg.go.dev is not something I am interested in supporting. I disagree with the notion that documentation should be centralized, especially when it is already available in a decentralized manner. All links to documentation in this repository point to https://docs.rocketnine.space/code.rocketnine.space/tslocum/cview

makeworld commented

2021-04-23 16:04:11 +00:00

Works for me, just thought a broken link was confusing.

flowchartsman commented

2021-04-23 17:11:42 +00:00

Your house, your rules, but it might prove a barrier to entry, especially for newer developers who are lead to believe that pkg.go.dev is the source of truth for go modules.

I will make one final counterpoint which is to say that decentralized documentation is a good thing, but with decentralized ecosystems (especially those which involve multiple sources of truth), availability is often mitigated by caching and aggregators, and pkg.go.dev (along with friends sum and proxy) is among the bigger ones.

Your objections should not be minimized, but I think the particulars of this issue extend beyond just "pkg.go.dev is being weird and I don't care about them". Specifically, your LICENSE file is weird and nonstandard and, had I not known about this project from github and later gitlab, I would have seen pkg.go.dev's lack of license, visited here, seen the nonstandard license on a self-hosted project and potentially been deterred from using an otherwise perfectly good TUI alternative. I just happen to like the project enough to set up a new account on a new open source system to put in the time to go through the extra hoops to make it better.

I understand that pkg.go.dev's sticklerism rankles you, and it's a fair point, but if it were me I would still consider the LICENSE/FORK.md changes I suggested if only to keep the license standard and clear.

Now, having said my peace, I will not belabor the point. :D

Your house, your rules, but it might prove a barrier to entry, especially for newer developers who are lead to believe that pkg.go.dev is the source of truth for go modules. I will make one final counterpoint which is to say that decentralized documentation *is* a good thing, but with decentralized ecosystems (especially those which involve multiple sources of truth), availability is often mitigated by caching and aggregators, and pkg.go.dev (along with friends sum and proxy) is among the bigger ones. Your objections should not be minimized, but I think the particulars of this issue extend beyond just "pkg.go.dev is being weird and I don't care about them". Specifically, your LICENSE file *is* weird and nonstandard and, had I not known about this project from github and later gitlab, I would have seen pkg.go.dev's lack of license, visited here, seen the nonstandard license on a self-hosted project and potentially been deterred from using an otherwise perfectly good TUI alternative. I just happen to like the project enough to set up a new account on a new open source system to put in the time to go through the extra hoops to make it better. I understand that pkg.go.dev's sticklerism rankles you, and it's a fair point, but if it were me I would still consider the LICENSE/FORK.md changes I suggested if only to keep the license standard and clear. Now, having said my peace, I will not belabor the point. :D

Sign in to join this conversation.