Consider changing the repository license

[DNin01]

Currently, the license for this repository's contents is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0, which I chose because it matched the license used on projects shared to Scratch. But CC-BY-SA 2.0:

1. Is two major versions behind
2. Requires that adaptations be licensed under the same license terms

Since these projects aren't shared on Scratch and I am the rights holder of the Scratch projects here, it is within my discretion to set a different license than what we agree to use when publishing to Scratch. One option is Creative Commons Attribution 4.0, which removes the need for derivative works to use the same license, which makes it possible to license work that uses them under a different, more desirable license, as I might if I were using them.

Speaking adapting and incorporating, I'm not a lawyer, but since Creative Commons licenses can be applied to parts of a work, my understanding is that by incorporating Scratch project code under a CC-BY license into yours, you would be able to set your own license for the rest of the contents, and also for the package as a whole, by simply stating which parts are under which license, as long as proper attribution and license labeling was given for others' works, so that, of course, others know what license each piece of the package is using. However, I'm confused about how that would work with a ShareAlike license, though I've heard that if you want to distribute such a project, the entire package might have to be licensed under the same ShareAlike license for it to be legal.

At least a non-ShareAlike license would make this much simpler.

As for usage in regular Scratch, not much would change as switching to CC-BY 4.0 would only grant more permissions, though most of the code is basically incompatible with Scratch (due to the use of TurboWarp-exclusive features) anyway.

[DNin01]

But then there's the whole thing about software vs. media licenses...