Licencing this repo

[Daeraxa]

Have you checked for existing feature requests?

• Completed

Summary

So we do have a small issue, whilst Atom itself was licenced under MIT the documentation for the website (i.e. the atom/flight-manual.atom.io repo) is actually licenced under CC BY-SA 3.0.

This means we need to provide attribution to this documentation in a bunch of places to remain clean on this.

• The website itself needs to have attribution when displaying the original docs, maybe just a single separate attribution file we can @include in each section.
  • e.g. "Atom flight-manual" by GitHub is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0
• Each original .md file can have the same attribution as above but probably just with an html comment at the bottom
  • e.g. <!--"Atom flight-manual" by GitHub is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0-->
• We will need a new LICENCE.md file in this repo which will have to pay attribution to the original licence:
  • e.g. "Pulsar", is a derivative of [Atom Flight Manual](https://flight-manual.atom.io) by GitHub, used under CC BY-SA 3.0. "Pulsar" is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 by [Pulsar-edit](https://github.com/pulsar-edit).
• Any altered documentation (I imagine just the actual content rather than the html stuff) will need also need to be displayed on the website as well as within the .md files like the unaltered stuff with the above (or similar) wording. We can just use @includes for the sections and html comments again for the md files.

Enter your response below:

We wont get in trouble

Any alternatives?

Re-write everything from scratch and throw the old docs away

Other examples:

No response

[meadowsys]

I did it like this in my repo, maybe something like this would be sufficient?

[Daeraxa]

So I did check and apparently that wouldn't be sufficient because we are publishing it on a website where that accreditation would not show. It needs to be present in the place where people are viewing the content or would potentially download/print a copy of it.

[meadowsys]

so perhaps a combination of that in the repo, and a license page (that we can link in a footer maybe?) that pulls from those files, assuming those files are sufficient?

[confused-Techie]

With the majority of the content having now been completely rewritten and we are nowhere displaying unmodified content from the original site do we still believe this might be an issue? Or do we think we are now okay