5 ms·
The content is not licensed creative commons. The code to the actual site is not open source, only the code to use the API. I would not call this an open source
by kimmel 13y ago
The content is not licensed creative commons. The code to the actual site is not open source, only the code to use the API. I would not call this an open source project or a major win. A major win would be a uniformly licensed content base that is CC-BY and they provide data dumps.
It is a slight improvement over bikepedia but not by much.
- bike_index 13y agoUmmmm? What? Yeah, Everything is open source and is in the repo. ALL THE DATA IS IN THE REPOSITORY. The repository is deployed, as is, to the internet, it has no database - the data is in the bike_data folder. You can view the code here, https://github.com/bikeindex/bikebook https://github.com/bikeindex/bikebook at the same place the link in the BikeBook footer goes. It is AGPL, so not creative commons. This is the license the Bike Index is under, so we just went with it. We'll consider a different license for the BikeBook, because maybe that makes more sense. Thanks for bringing it up.