Switch license from GPLv3 to CC BY-SA 4.0#315
Merged
Conversation
leviport
approved these changes
Sep 3, 2025
Member
leviport
left a comment
leviport
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sounds very reasonable to me
thomas-zimmerman
approved these changes
Sep 3, 2025
Contributor
thomas-zimmerman
left a comment
thomas-zimmerman
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
CC BY-SA is likely a better free license for documentation.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #302.
This makes more sense for documentation, and also matches the license of https://github.com/system76/docs.
CC BY-SA 4.0 is one-way compatible with the GPLv3, so it can still be used as GPLv3 if someone wants to do that.
98.2% of the commits and 99.9% of the lines of text in this repository have come from employees. Almost all commits of actual content by non-employees have been corrections to statements of fact (not necessarily copyrightable); the only other commit by a non-employee was the author of mdBook removing a deprecated field from a CI file, which is trivial. Based on this, I believe we're legally in the clear to make this change. As mentioned above, we would be able to convert back to GPLv3 in the future if desired without any legal concerns due to the one-way compatibility.