Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

web-data licensing question #23

Closed
tomrav opened this issue Jun 28, 2021 · 7 comments
Closed

web-data licensing question #23

tomrav opened this issue Jun 28, 2021 · 7 comments

Comments

@tomrav
Copy link

tomrav commented Jun 28, 2021

I see that there is a mix of content and licenses in various parts of this repository (depending on their originating source, which makes total sense to me).

I wanted to inquire specifically about the web-data package/directory, and the data folder within. These don't seem to have a specific license applied, I'm not sure if the license from the root of the project applies, and so I wonder how they are licensed according to you?

Appreciate your help figuring this out.

@aeschli
Copy link
Contributor

aeschli commented Jul 2, 2021

I added a license file. I hope that's helpful.

@aeschli aeschli closed this as completed Jul 2, 2021
@tomrav
Copy link
Author

tomrav commented Jul 3, 2021

Thank you for replying, but I'm still not seeing any license in the web-data package folder (or any new commits in the last 5 days).
Something got missed perhaps?

@aeschli
Copy link
Contributor

aeschli commented Jul 5, 2021

Sorry, now it pushed (https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-custom-data/blob/main/web-data/LICENSE.md) and will be published to npm soon.

@tomrav
Copy link
Author

tomrav commented Jul 5, 2021

Thanks for posting the license.

I'd like to ask a clarification question.

We're interested in using the two files browsers.css-data.json and browsers.html-data.json, from the web-data/data folder.

How would you say those two files are licensed? I'm not super clear about the distinction between data and content in the license. So I'm not sure under which one it falls.

CC BY-SA 2.5 is a viral license (like GPLv3) so this is critical for us to understand before consuming.

Hope this isn't a bother. :)

@aeschli
Copy link
Contributor

aeschli commented Jul 5, 2021

Sorry, I read up on this and removed the reference to CC BY-SA 2.5. It's now pure MIT.

This is based on my understanding of the discussion here mdn/data#210 (comment) that we had with MDN.

I'll have this checked with our legal guys, before I'll publish the next version.

You want to have this checked as well, if you have doubts.

@tomrav
Copy link
Author

tomrav commented Jul 5, 2021

Thanks for clearing this up, I'll be sure to run it past our legal too.

@tomrav
Copy link
Author

tomrav commented Aug 3, 2021

Hi, just wondering if it was settled and can be published?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants