Licensing #3

New issue

Closed

opened 2022-07-14 08:34:16 +02:00 by irrtum_limited · 4 comments

irrtum_limited commented

2022-07-14 08:34:16 +02:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

Sorry to come up with such "PITA"-topics.

But this has to be discussed, I think.

Right now this repo has 3 members. Maybe two of them are just two personalities of one real person ;) - just my suspicion.
It may be more in the future, if this gets more traction.

As far as I see and also as I personally like it to be (but that's just me maybe) this is a free and open project. To make sure it stays like this and is not ripped of by commercial interest I think it would make sense to give this a proper license which reflects this.

I don't think a "code" license like GNU, Apache, BSD licenses would make sense because this is more about content than anything else.

I think this is clearly a case for Creative Commons.

Something like CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 or (probably better) CC BY-SA 4.0.

NC Non Commercial. Does not mean commercial is NOT allowed. But WE are in control: If someone asks for commercial use we may allow it. Do we want this kind of control? I'm not much into it.
BY: Attribution. Who did what. This troubles me a bit. I don't think/want that every line added has an entry about who added it. That would be nonsense. The only "By" which would make sense would be "Woman In Music Project" or just "WIM". Dunno. The thing is. With Creative Commons 4.0 the "BY" is non optional. It has to be there.
SA: When forking this project, put the fork exactly under this license. Makes MUCH sense in my eyes.

So I'D say: CC BY-SA 4.0.

What do you think?

Sorry to come up with such "PITA"-topics. But this has to be discussed, I think. Right now this repo has 3 members. Maybe two of them are just two personalities of one real person ;) - just my suspicion. It may be more in the future, if this gets more traction. As far as I see and also as I personally like it to be (but that's just me maybe) this is a free and open project. To make sure it stays like this and is not ripped of by commercial interest I think it would make sense to give this a proper license which reflects this. I don't think a "code" license like GNU, Apache, BSD licenses would make sense because this is more about **content** than anything else. I think this is clearly a case for Creative Commons. Something like CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 or (probably better) CC BY-SA 4.0. * **NC** Non Commercial. Does not mean commercial is NOT allowed. But WE are in control: If someone asks for commercial use **we** may allow it. Do **we** want this kind of control? I'm not much into it. * **BY**: Attribution. Who did what. This troubles me a bit. I don't think/want that every line added has an entry about who added it. That would be nonsense. The only "By" which would make sense would be "Woman In Music Project" or just "WIM". Dunno. The thing is. With Creative Commons 4.0 the "BY" is non optional. It has to be there. * SA: When forking this project, put the fork exactly under this license. Makes MUCH sense in my eyes. So I'D say: CC BY-SA 4.0. What do you think?

sakrecoer commented

2022-07-18 23:48:42 +02:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

Hey great question!

To answer your questions in their order:

we are now two humans and a bot contributing to rhe repo, but the first list was created by Nosteps who is not present on gitlab. 😄
Creative Commons is for media and applies poorly to code. Since the content is in CSV, and the rwst of the repo is cose, I'd suggest GPL3 as the most appropriate. But you have a point in that a CC license would fit this set-up. In that case I'd prefer if it had the NC attributes as well.

However, since the list was originally compiled by Nostep i'd like them to decide.

Hey great question! To answer your questions in their order: 1. we are now two humans and a bot contributing to rhe repo, but the first list was created by Nosteps who is not present on gitlab. :smile: 2. Creative Commons is for media and applies poorly to code. Since the content is in CSV, and the rwst of the repo is cose, I'd suggest GPL3 as the most appropriate. But you have a point in that a CC license would fit this set-up. In that case I'd prefer if it had the NC attributes as well. However, since the list was originally compiled by Nostep i'd like them to decide.

irrtum_limited commented

2022-07-20 10:56:28 +02:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

Ok - are you in contact with NoStep? Else I'd ask him. It is nostep.ca, right?

nosteps commented

2022-07-21 13:52:57 +02:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)

Hi @irrtum_limited,
Thanks for your precious inputs.
I think the right licence for this project is CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Thanks to ask me @sakrecoer

Hi @irrtum_limited, Thanks for your precious inputs. I think the right licence for this project is CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Thanks to ask me @sakrecoer

sakrecoer commented

2022-07-28 14:10:18 +02:00

(Migrated from gitlab.com)