Update choosing a platform doc #8837
Conversation
agjohnson
commented
Jan 25, 2022
agjohnson
commented
- Unify on "site" -> "platform"
- Remove some words for clarity and brevity
- Add some more marketing content, commercial section was dry
agjohnson
force-pushed
the
agj/choosing-updates
branch
from
a52880a to
095837e
Compare
* Unify on "site" -> "platform" * Remove some words for clarity and brevity * Add some more marketing content, commercial section was dry
docs/user/choosing-a-site.rst
Outdated
| This is great for user and developer documentation for your project. | ||
| |org_brand| is strictly for hosting open source documentation. This means that | ||
| project documentation source, and the generated documentation, are both publicly | ||
| accessible and licensed under a permissive license. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why permissive specifically? Could be copyleft as well (not considered "permissive" as far as I understand). Or, not have a license at all, because people tend to forget to choose a license. I would remove references to the licensing here, just say that the sources are "publicly visible" or something like it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same, I don't think we mention any of that in our ToS
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good points.
I wasn't meaning to differentiate between copyleft and permissive here. There's no point where we check or enforce licensing, however we do describe in several places (or have described in the past) that community is for open source projects or non-commercial works. Dropping mention of a license is the most correct though.
True about repositories without a license. Github TOS would apply here by default, meaning those repositories retain full copyright and do not explicitly grant us any rights at all -- even the right "to use".
In this case, our TOS does grant us necessary rights:
https://docs.readthedocs.io/en/stable/terms-of-service.html#license-grant-to-us
So, open licensing is not a legal requirement because our TOS works around that. But, I will leave the mention of open source documentation hosting.
* Don't mention licenses at all, this isn't a legal or technical req * Strictly sounded odd
