futurice / spiceprogram Goto Github PK

View Code? Open in Web Editor NEW

22.0 70.0 15.0 277.82 MB

Spice Program website and source files for OSS docs

Home Page: https://spiceprogram.org/

License: Other

Ruby 0.02% HTML 60.87% JavaScript 0.59% SCSS 38.01% Pug 0.51%

spiceprogram's Introduction

spice-doc-source

Source files for OSS docs. See spiceprogram.org for rendered pages.

Running the site locally

Install Bundler:
gem install bundler

Install dependencies with Bundler:
bundle install

Run the site locally:
bundle exec jekyll serve

If getting this error when trying to build: "An error occurred while installing json (1.8.3), and Bundler cannot continue.", try the following:

Remove json 1.8.3 library line from Gemfile.lock
run bundle install again to add and update all the dependencies Json library should get updated to the correct version and a new bundle should be generated

spiceprogram's People

Contributors

Stargazers

Watchers

Forkers

mwing toukovk harriha mkirvela johnnycullan susanneh tarumuh ykarikos anttti stauciuc hillamu2 ygeo saraelise anttiviljami ttur

spiceprogram's Issues

Describe the importance of choosing and declaring a license

In practice, code (or content) can not be used, unless license is known.

We should have an image (or og:image) for social media shares

Would be nice to have a nice image, or even og:image and a Twitter card, for social media shares, there is none at the moment and I believe having one could draw some more attention to a share.

Currently on Facebook:

Slack:

Image links from Futurice blog are broken on the Highlights page

Image links from Futurice blog are broken on the Highlights page on the Highlights page http://www.spiceprogram.org/highlights/
There needs to be made the same fix as in futurice.github.io:
futurice/futurice.github.io@2aa8dd4

Question leading to the Apache License doesn't talk about patents held by contributors

At http://spiceprogram.org/choose/ , the question leading to the Apache License talk about patents held by whoever chooses the license. While it's nice to protect others from yourself (or, more importantly, future buyers of your patents), it seems even more important to me as a license choice criterion that you get protection from patents held by those who contribute patches to your project. It would make sense to phrase the question from this point of view.

(Also, compared to MIT and BSD, it's pretty nice that Apache License 2.0 is clear that things that look like contributions indeed are contributed under the license.)

Some SEO needed

Currently the site is nearly impossible to find with Google. It should be possible! Even probable?

Overemphasis on the difference between MIT and BSD

http://spiceprogram.org/choose/ suggests that there's a meaningful difference between MIT and BSD. This assumes that by default, it's permissible to claim a false endorsement. As for as I can tell, that's not how things are by default, so it's weird to portray making a default state of affairs explicit as a material difference.

Need some way to see updated content

It is possible, if improbable, that someone who reads the materials on this site checks back after six months. There should be some indication then what is new, what has been updated. This might also resolve the "authored by" and "edited by" questions.

"Can I use this work"-diagram does not have Apache

The GitHub project does not have any license

We need to license the hell out of this... MIT for the code, CC BY for the graphics and CC BY-SA for the photographs? Should we divide the CC BY and SS BY-SA materials into different folders, to be able to add a LICENSE.txt for each? The root LICENSE.txt can then note that these materials have their separate licensing.

Fix titles and descriptions

AGPL missing from the start of the decision tree

http://spiceprogram.org/choose/ does not mention AGPLv3. For completeness, the first decision should probable involve AGPLv3.

The difficult thing is formulating the question so that it makes sense and the first question, though, since it's hard to introduce the issue of SaaS not triggering the GPL source availability requirement.

Fix deletion of image assets from the history

The commit acbe647 in gh-pages branch apparently accidentally deleted all the image assets. This is a bit tricky because all merge related fixes would result in basically duplication of the whole history of this repository. Therefore history rewrite as follows is the simplest way:

$ git fetch
$ git checkout gh-pages
$ git rebase -i acbe647955772f21eddb7c3d04c3e3f7f76b8265^
# change the invalid commit from "pick" to "edit"
$ git checkout HEAD^ assets/img
$ git commit --amend
$ git rebase --continue
# there are going to be some conflicts of re-added assets that can be fixed with:
$ git add assets/img
$ git rebase --continue
# finally check that there are only assets/img related adds in our rewritten history:
$ git diff origin/gh-pages HEAD --name-status
$ git status
# this shows following:
# Your branch and 'origin/gh-pages' have diverged,
# and have 21 and 25 different commits each, respectively.
# this is because 4 commits became irrelevant (they only added old image assets to the repo)

Finally I pushed the changes with git push -f, this means that whoever has gh-pages on their hard disk new pulls may cause ugly merge commits, therefore (after you MAKE SURE that you don't have uncommitted changes) it is recommended to do:

$ git reset --hard acbe647955772f21eddb7c3d04c3e3f7f76b8265^
$ git fetch
$ git merge origin/gh-pages

Or alternatively just do a clean git clone of the repository.

Feel free to delete this issue whenever you wish.