We have built our new marketing website on Gatsby and wish to have it as a public repository on GitHub in case it’s helpful for others building projects with Gatsby.

The repository contains a number of assets and content we do not want others to use commercially, namely, the ‘look and feel’ of the website which includes its CSS styling, our logo, icons, illustrations, and documentation.

I’m currently considering the MIT license for code, and the Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Australia (CC BY-NC 3.0 AU) License for the content.

It’s a bit tricky because the content is scattered throughout the React code. For instance, we use TypeStyle, so the CSS is in the .tsx files.

So, I have two questions. Are these licenses appropriate? And how do I set up the license structure in the repository to clearly articulate which license applies to which files?

  • 1
    Any license is appropriate, but you'll probably want to more clearly separate the proprietary assets and styles. May 2 '18 at 12:04
  • 1
    Could you simply not distribute the proprietary assets (distribute functional but free equivalents instead)? It would make it much easier for people to actually use it, assuming that is your goal. If I download a 'free/open source software' and then find out that to actually use it I have to sift through .css files and remove the ones not marked as free, then what's the point? I may as well just delete the repo from my hard disk and look for something I can actually use.
    – Brandin
    May 2 '18 at 14:45
  • @Brandin The goal isn't really for people to base their project on our website, there are plenty of templates and tutorials for that. It's more so people can find examples of how to implement certain things in Gatsby, or use certain plugins. We found a lot of the beginner stuff in Gatsby straightforward, but there are plenty of “gotchas” when you start doing more advanced stuff. By having our site available, we can link directly to examples when helping people out. May 3 '18 at 1:58
  • 1
    @BenjaminHumphrey Open source and free software is all about people basing a work on something else. For example, I can copy Linux, make changes, make my own OS based on that. If this is not what you want, you do not want to license your things as open source.
    – Brandin
    May 3 '18 at 4:53
  • @Brandin I'm familiar with the point of open source software, however, something can be open to the public for educational purposes without necessarily being practical to fork. How practical something is to build on top of is a spectrum. In our case, we're on one end. We're not interested in building a library for others to easily use, rather, we're simply sharing what we've built as reference material. The question is, when we do this, we don't want people to assume this means they can copy the custom content we've created and use it for commercial purposes. Does that make sense? May 3 '18 at 5:12

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.