Asking for feedback: Mirror GitHub issues with a static site generator
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 11:31 PM Vitaly Potyarkin <sio.wtf at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 9:31 PM Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:
> > You mention a persistent Storage, merely in passing. I want to see
> > more about that. If that storage format is a nice easy thing to work
> > with (eg a set of JSON files), and is a documented and
> > forward/backward-compatible format, it could become a de facto
> > interchange format.
> I've chosen this approach because I think it's almost impossible to create a
> storage format that would become "a de facto interchange format". At least not
> for a project run by a single developer. Defining an agreeable dataset for
> visual representation is easier because it does not impose any limits on those
> who want to store extra data - they get to store anything they want any way
> they want. The limitations apply only to the presentation layer. If they don't
> like my approach - their data is still intact, in machine readable format.
Hmm. Fair point. Still, I think maybe there could be a compromise here
- eg a partially-defined JSON format that allows extensions. That way,
you can export something with additional information that the Reader
ignores, safely retain it, and yet still maintain this compatibility.
> > What are the consequences of using the AGPL for this? If this project
> > is used to create a viewable/searchable issue display, does that mean
> > that the issues themselves are covered by the AGPL, or are they
> > counted as data?
> Oh, no! Of course issues and comments are data and are not covered by AGPL.
> Only the application itself is covered, even though AGPL for a static site
> generator is almost unenforceable, because of the middleware loophole.
> Pelican - static site generator I base my work on - uses AGPL for their source
> code, and no one is going around claiming all the blog posts are now copyleft.
Good to know. I'm always a bit leery of anything that could
potentially slap a GPL onto arbitrary text or code - it's too much of
a pain to go around asking people if they're okay with their content
being relicensed. (It's hard enough to get that kind of permission
from just TWO additional people. I speak from experience here.)