Add copyright and license information

Before we can switch the new website live, we have to clarify the copyright and license situation, in particular considering all of the external software (jQuery, Bootstrap etc.) that we use. This merge request adds the required information. I don't want to bore you with the details, but it sets the following policy:

• All of the content on the web page is licensed under CC-BY-SA-4.0. This means that people can copy that information around, but they have to acknowledge the original source (the Dune website) and have to use similar licenses.
• In addition, all source code that appears on the website (code examples etc.) are licensed under the extremely liberal Unlicense https://unlicense.org. This basically lets people do whatever they want with that code, it only makes sure that there is a liablilty exclusion clause.
• As the theme of our website is an extension of the Apache-licensed theme of the Hugo website, all of the theme files are also Apache 2.0.

The one thing that I think we should discuss is whether we want to use CC-BY-SA (requires downstream to use a similarly free license), or if we restrict ourselves to CC-BY (which only requires attribution).

Added 1 commit:

• a71d8124 - [License] Fix capitalizaton of Bootstrap, they seem to care about that

Sounds good for me. I clearly prefer CC-BY, but could live with CC-BY-SA, too.

Fine with me either way

Go ahead.

Sounds all good too me. I prefer CC-BY-SA over CC-BY.

Sounds good. I prefer CC-BY-SA.

CC-BY-SA

This might turn out to be a can of worms...

There is stuff on the website that origins from the source code , PDF files from the documentation written in latex (definitely not CC-BY*), CMake documentation (definitely not CC-BY* when contributed by others), doxygen documentation (GPL, might be contributed by others), mailing list archive, ... . therefore some the statements in the copyright and license are wrong. Putting one licence on the whole website might not be impossible but turn out to be a huge effort (having to ask all potential contributors).

The unlicence thing does also not hold for all source code published on the website. I have doubts that it holds for code in the doxygen documentation.

I would suggest to only add the license information to the footer of those pages that are generated from the source of the repository, only as we have to exclude generated and copied stuff from the source code repositories, and the mailing lists archive. That way you (or Peter who has all the responsibilities on his shoulder) are safe and people can be sure that the licenses actually hold.

@markus.blatt You're right, I forgot about the auto-generated documentation. That should be exempt as well, but we can just tell people that it is licensed in accordance with the underlying software package that it was extracted from. I'll add a statement along those lines to legal.md.

Added 1 commit:

• 27ecfb5a - [Legal] Clear up statement about applicability of default copyright and license

IMO, the mailing list archive clearly isn't part of the website (and the text is (hopefully) now clear about the fact that the default copyright only applies to stuff that can be found in the source repository of the website).

I think we really should put a statement on all pages - just because the auto-generated documentation doesn't fall under the default copyright / license, that doesn't mean that some other copyright and license don't apply (and should be mentioned).

Sounds good.

OK, I'm going to merge this as it is right now. If you feel this needs more tweaking, open an issue or (even better ) a merge request with improvements.

mentioned in commit 9bfc263c

Status changed to merged