Inferencium/website
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Activity

Reformat section "Licensing" to conform to code style

Browse Source 
Add subsections for each licence type and license, fix section IDs and
corresponding heading links, fix heading wording, and change line
lengths to conform to code style.
This commit is contained in:
inference 2024-02-05 22:16:20 +00:00
parent 04d1216aeb
commit 5c2c327baf
Signed by: inference
SSH Key Fingerprint: SHA256:FtEVfx1CmTKMy40VwZvF4k+3TC+QhCWy+EmPRg50Nnc
1 changed files with 103 additions and 71 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

174
about.xhtml
View File

@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
<!DOCTYPE html>
<!-- Inferencium - Website - About -->
<!-- Version: 8.1.0-alpha.3 -->
<!-- Version: 8.1.0-alpha.4 -->
<!-- Copyright 2022 Jake Winters -->
<!-- SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause -->
@ -117,80 +117,112 @@
</section>
<section id="licensing">
<h2><a href="#licensing">Licensing</a></h2>
<p>I care about upstreaming and sharing code, strongly preferring licenses which
have high license compatibility in order to permit sharing code with as many
other projects as possible; for this reason, permissive licenses are my
preferred choice, while avoiding copyleft licenses and other licenses which
place restrictions on how my code may be used, and prevent me from including
important proprietary code, such as firmware, which can patch security
<p>I care about upstreaming and sharing code, strongly
preferring licenses which have high license compatibility in
order to permit sharing code with as many other projects as
possible; for this reason, permissive licenses are my
preferred choice, while avoiding copyleft licenses and other
licenses which place restrictions on how my code may be
used, and prevent me from including important proprietary
code, such as firmware, which can patch security
vulnerabilities, privacy issues, and stability issues.</p>
<p>All of my code is and will be permissively licensed unless specific
circumstances make it impractical or infeasible to do so. My goal is to share
code which has the least amount of restrictions as possible, to allow wider
propagation of my code and allow more use cases and possibilities, as well as
ensuring proprietary code, whenever required, is permitted to be included and/or
linked to.</p>
<p>All of my code is and will be permissively licensed
unless specific circumstances make it impractical or
infeasible to do so. My goal is to share code which has the
least amount of restrictions as possible, to allow wider
propagation of my code and allow more use cases and
possibilities, as well as ensuring proprietary code,
whenever required, is permitted to be included and/or linked
to.</p>
<p><a href="https://iso.org/standard/81870.html">ISO 5962:2021</a>
is used for licensing, in the format
<code>SPDX-License-Identifier: &lt;license&gt;</code>; see the
<code>SPDX-License-Identifier: &lt;license&gt;</code>; see
the
<a href="https://spdx.org/licenses/">SPDX License List</a>
for the full list of available licenses under this standard.</p>
<p>My preferred licenses and rationale for using them are below; any licenses
not listed are chosen on a case-by-case basis.</p>
<h3 id="licensing-code"><a href="#licensing-code">Code</a></h3>
<h4 id="licensing-bsd-3-clause"><a href="#licensing-bsd-3-clause">BSD 3-Clause License</a></h4>
<code>SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause</code>
<p><b>Type: Permissive</b></p>
<p><a href="https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause.html">BSD 3-Clause License</a>
is a highly permissive license which allows content
licensed under it to be used in any way, whether in
source or binary form, and allows sublicensing under a
different license, with the only restrictions being the
original copyright notice must be kept in order to
attribute the original creator of the licensed content,
and the name of the project and/or its contributors may
not be used to endorse or promote products derived from
the original project.</p>
<h4 id="licensing-gpl-2.0"><a href="#licensing-gpl-2.0">GNU General Public License v2.0</a></h4>
<code>SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only</code>
<p><b>Type: Copyleft</b></p>
<p><a href="https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-only.html">GNU General Public License v2.0</a>
is a strong copyleft license which restricts use of
content licensed under it by requiring all source code
of the content to be publicly available, making
binary-only form and inclusion of proprietary code
impossible, requiring all derivatives to be licensed
under the same license (allowing sublicensing under only
newer GPL licenses if <code>GPL-2.0-or-later</code> is
specified in the SPDX license identifier), and requiring
the original copyright notice to be kept in order to
attribute the original creator of the licensed
content.</p>
<p>Due to the restrictive and invasive nature of this
license, it is avoided unless such restrictions would be
beneficial to my code; whenever this is the case, the
GNU General Public License v2.0 will be used, rather
than the more restrictive
<a href="https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-3.0-only.html">GNU General Public License v3.0</a>,
and relicensing derivatives under the GNU General Public
License v3.0 will be disallowed.</p>
<h3 id="licensing-noncode"><a href="#licensing-noncode">Non-code</a></h3>
<h4 id="licensing-cc-by-4.0"><a href="#licensing-cc-by-4.0">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International</a></h4>
<code>SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-4.0</code>
<p><b>Type: Permissive</b></p>
<p><a href="https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-BY-4.0.html">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International</a>
is a highly permissive license which allows content
licensed under it to be used in any way, in any medium,
with the only restriction being the original copyright
notice must be kept in order to attribute the original
creator of the licensed content.</p>
<h3 id="licensing-open_source_vs_free_software"><a href="#licensing-open_source_vs_free_software">Do I Distinguish Between Open-source and Free Software?</a></h3>
<p>No. If code is not released under an open-source license and
places restrictions on how the code may be used, it is either
source-available (if viewing the code is permitted) or
proprietary. "Free software" only causes confusion and exists to
push an ideology by a specific group of people. If software
isn't "free", it's not open-source, either.</p>
for the full list of available licenses under this
standard.</p>
<p>My preferred licenses and rationale for using them are
below; any licenses not listed are chosen on a case-by-case
basis.</p>
<section id="licensing-code">
<h3><a href="#licensing-code">Code</a></h3>
<section id="licensing-code-bsd3clause">
<h4><a href="#licensing-code-bsd3clause">BSD 3-Clause License</a></h4>
<code>SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause</code>
<p><b>Type: Permissive</b></p>
<p><a href="https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause.html">BSD 3-Clause License</a>
is a highly permissive license which
allows content licensed under it to be
used in any way, whether in source or
binary form, and allows sublicensing
under a different license, with the only
restrictions being the original
copyright notice must be kept in order
to attribute the original creator of the
licensed content, and the name of the
project and/or its contributors may not
be used to endorse or promote products
derived from the original project.</p>
</section>
<section id="licensing-code-gpl2.0only">
<h4><a href="#licensing-code-gpl2.0only">GNU General Public License v2.0</a></h4>
<code>SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only</code>
<p><b>Type: Copyleft</b></p>
<p><a href="https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-2.0-only.html">GNU General Public License v2.0</a>
is a strong copyleft license which
restricts use of content licensed under
it by requiring all source code of the
content to be publicly available, making
binary-only form and inclusion of
proprietary code impossible, requiring
all derivatives to be licensed under the
same license (allowing sublicensing
under only newer GPL licenses if
<code>GPL-2.0-or-later</code> is
specified in the SPDX license
identifier), and requiring the original
copyright notice to be kept in order to
attribute the original creator of the
licensed content.</p>
<p>Due to the restrictive and invasive
nature of this license, it is avoided
unless such restrictions would be
beneficial to my code; whenever this is
the case, the GNU General Public License
v2.0 will be used, rather than the more
restrictive
<a href="https://spdx.org/licenses/GPL-3.0-only.html">GNU General Public License v3.0</a>,
and relicensing derivatives under the
GNU General Public License v3.0 will be
disallowed.</p>
</section>
</section>
<section id="licensing-noncode">
<h3><a href="#licensing-noncode">Non-code</a></h3>
<section id="licensing-noncode-ccby4.0">
<h4><a href="#licensing-noncode-ccby4.0">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International</a></h4>
<code>SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-4.0</code>
<p><b>Type: Permissive</b></p>
<p><a href="https://spdx.org/licenses/CC-BY-4.0.html">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International</a>
is a highly permissive license which
allows content licensed under it to be
used in any way, in any medium, with the
only restriction being the original
copyright notice must be kept in order
to attribute the original creator of the
licensed content.</p>
</section>
</section>
<section id="licensing-open_source_vs_free_software">
<h3><a href="#licensing-open_source_vs_free_software">Do I Distinguish Between Open Source and Free Software?</a></h3>
<p>No. If code is not released under an open-source
license and places restrictions on how the code may be
used, it is either source-available (if viewing the code
is permitted) or proprietary. "Free software" only
causes confusion and exists to push an ideology by a
specific group of people. If software isn't "free", it's
not open-source, either.</p>
</section>
</section>
<section id="versioning">
<h2><a href="#versioning">Versioning</a></h2>