HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.
Vanilla forum, website and licensing.
Tellendil
New
Hey,
I'm currently building a website using bootstrap and Jquery, with as a forum, indeed, Vanilla.
I plan to later integrate the website in the garden framework too.
But while reading everything, I get a problem with licences. I am asking here as Vanilla is the most restrictive.
Bootstrap is MIT licensed,
Jquery is MIT too.
But Vanilla is gplv2.
I wanted to know if I could make my website opensource under MIT license, excluding Vanilla forum which is under it's proper license.
And would I need to add only one license.md on my repo with the MIT license's text ?
I'm a bit lost, sorry if it's not the place.
Thanks a lot !
Tagged:
0
Comments
Our policy has been that any addons built on the framework can use the license of your choice as long as you're not redistributing any of our code.
The next generation of our framework will carry a separate MIT license from Vanilla's GPL to make this clearer.
So I cannot basically add your github repo as a submodule in my repo ? Or if I do I need to license my website as gplv2, that's it ?
Thanks a lot for the quick answer !
You'd need to make the whole thing GPLv2 if you want to redistribute our code directly.
In other words distribute themes, plug in and applications separately and you can licence them MIT, only if you fork garden or the existing applications, theme and plug-ins which are gpl must you release them as gpl.
grep is your friend.
As sub-modules need to pull separately and you are pulling from source, I can't see to many issues with it. But what do I know.
I think sub-modules are bleh though. I would just open source what you develop. You wouldn't submodule rails or django.
grep is your friend.
I just thought of something...
If you have a theme with a lot of view overrides (not advisable but possible). You are either going to re-write each of these so the amount of original code is minimal. Or licence as GPL
This might be difficult/impossible becuase much of the code is critical for function.
I don't really know what core teams position is on this. it does seem a grey area to me.
Welcome to the world of licences and side effects.
grep is your friend.
Well thanks for this insight... I'll go gplv2 (or v3 ? the README.md states v3... well... anyway, v3 is v2 compatible, as stated in gplv2).
Hope I won't screw up with the license.
Go for gplv2. gplv2 is the licence used and gpl3 is a minefield.
grep is your friend.
Ok, I've added the license and so on, but still not sure if I did it right.
Would somebody mind just checking https://github.com/Tellendil/andlr-website (vanilla is in forum/) to see if licensing is correct ?
Thanks a lot anyway, you helped me a lot. Licensing is so... obscure at some moments
All this work and now it turns out, you're using a phpBB forum on your site
Oh No @R_J that's the old one
The new one is not released yet ! I wanted to get rid of phpbb 
That's an error. We only ever use the GPLv2 and MIT licenses.
It is fine. I wouldn't have released it like that, but no problem.
With GPL releasing it and asking if it is OK, is a bit like a cement truck dumping its load, then wondering it got the right building site. You have already done now.
grep is your friend.
I reported it
@x00 If it wasn't right, I would have deleted the repo and restarted the process, that's not a problem. I have a hidden repo, I make the changes, push and if not ok can revert from the hidden repo
What would have you done differently ?