Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Licensing #14

Closed
xorJane opened this issue Aug 11, 2018 · 7 comments
Closed

Licensing #14

xorJane opened this issue Aug 11, 2018 · 7 comments

Comments

@xorJane
Copy link
Contributor

xorJane commented Aug 11, 2018

The licensing issue identified to us by Software Carpentry is the Licensing.md file in this directory, which has a statement about copyright. Can we simply remove this material, or should we replace it with other licensing info making it clear this material is meant to be free and open? @ViralBShah @DeepakVinchhi

@ViralBShah
Copy link
Contributor

Do they want to adopt our materials and build further on that?

Let's figure this out next week. We need to be careful about the 500k or other materials we are not ready to put out. But if this is stuff from the youtube tutorials, we can make it all MIT licensed.

@ViralBShah
Copy link
Contributor

@xorJane Please do stay on top of this and get it sorted out.

@aviks
Copy link
Contributor

aviks commented Aug 12, 2018

I'd talked about this on Slack a few days ago, but I don't think I made myself very clear. So thanks for raising this, Jane.

@ViralBShah this repo does not contain any 500K material, so that is not an issue.

Jane, we need to to license each directory, since this contains materials by different author. All JC authored material should be made MIT. Could you please:

  • Raise a PR to remove the current license file, and add an MIT license file to the directories created by JC employees: viz "Intro to Julia", "intro -es", "metaprogramning", "parallellism" and "juliadb"

For the others, we need to get explicit licenses from the original authors. this can be by e-mail, or as a PR to this repo that they explicitly approve. the latter might be cleaner, as it provides an audit trail.

@xorJane
Copy link
Contributor Author

xorJane commented Aug 13, 2018 via email

@aviks
Copy link
Contributor

aviks commented Aug 13, 2018

In general, derivative works will have to follow the rules of the original licence. Since the MIT is very flexible, we should probably then ask Miguel what he wants. If he is OK with MIT, that's easy. If he wants something else, the original MIT license will also have to be placed in that repo.

@ViralBShah
Copy link
Contributor

I would add Miguel as the copyright owner there. I think he will be ok.

@logankilpatrick
Copy link
Member

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants