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

ODK does not have licensing terms in the repository #223

Closed
ajpiano opened this Issue Dec 2, 2016 · 11 comments

Comments

9 participants
@ajpiano

ajpiano commented Dec 2, 2016

via Twitter: https://twitter.com/jgmac1106/status/804671714403749888

We should select and apply a license.

@susanjrobertson

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@susanjrobertson

susanjrobertson Mar 22, 2017

Collaborator

@iamjessklein do you have any strong feelings about this? We should do this sooner rather than later.

Collaborator

susanjrobertson commented Mar 22, 2017

@iamjessklein do you have any strong feelings about this? We should do this sooner rather than later.

@iamjessklein iamjessklein added the reboot label Aug 16, 2017

@iamjessklein iamjessklein modified the milestone: Community Reboot Sep 1, 2017

@iamjessklein

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@iamjessklein

iamjessklein Sep 1, 2017

Contributor

@LauraHilliger do you have any thoughts on this particular piece?

Contributor

iamjessklein commented Sep 1, 2017

@LauraHilliger do you have any thoughts on this particular piece?

@iamjessklein

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@iamjessklein

iamjessklein Sep 1, 2017

Contributor

Since the interesting thing about this project is less the code and more the content, I imagine that this should be a Creative Commons license. My inclination is CC-BY:

This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials.

Contributor

iamjessklein commented Sep 1, 2017

Since the interesting thing about this project is less the code and more the content, I imagine that this should be a Creative Commons license. My inclination is CC-BY:

This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials.

@mjchamplin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mjchamplin

mjchamplin Sep 1, 2017

Collaborator

Given that more of my work is visual and less of it's code, I'm more familiar with the CC licenses. We might consider non-commercial, though, because with CC-BY someone could package ODK and sell it as a product, if I'm not mistaken...

Collaborator

mjchamplin commented Sep 1, 2017

Given that more of my work is visual and less of it's code, I'm more familiar with the CC licenses. We might consider non-commercial, though, because with CC-BY someone could package ODK and sell it as a product, if I'm not mistaken...

@mjchamplin

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mjchamplin

mjchamplin Sep 1, 2017

Collaborator

CC-BY ND wouldn't let someone use a derivative for commercial purposes, but you lose protections if they change the license on derivative works:

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.

CC BY-NC-SA is more restrictive:

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.

I suppose it really comes down to whether we're worried that'll be an issue.

Collaborator

mjchamplin commented Sep 1, 2017

CC-BY ND wouldn't let someone use a derivative for commercial purposes, but you lose protections if they change the license on derivative works:

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.

CC BY-NC-SA is more restrictive:

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.

I suppose it really comes down to whether we're worried that'll be an issue.

@LauraHilliger

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@LauraHilliger

LauraHilliger Sep 12, 2017

Honestly, I'm always on the fence about licensing!

this thread on the badge wiki Loomio has some arguments for less restrictive licensing.
https://www.loomio.org/d/YqhueSTa/creative-commons-license-for-badge-wiki

LauraHilliger commented Sep 12, 2017

Honestly, I'm always on the fence about licensing!

this thread on the badge wiki Loomio has some arguments for less restrictive licensing.
https://www.loomio.org/d/YqhueSTa/creative-commons-license-for-badge-wiki

@MattSurabian

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MattSurabian

MattSurabian Sep 13, 2017

I've found this site to be a great resource for plain english comparing and contrasting of various licenses: https://choosealicense.com/

MattSurabian commented Sep 13, 2017

I've found this site to be a great resource for plain english comparing and contrasting of various licenses: https://choosealicense.com/

@iamjessklein iamjessklein moved this from In Progress to In Review in ODK - Community Reboot Sep 15, 2017

@xuv

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@xuv

xuv Nov 10, 2017

Hello @everyone

After the presentation of OpenDesignKit at OpenSourceDesign NYC meetup yesterday, we discussed the fact that the lack of license was probably slowing down future collaborations and improvements. @iamjessklein invited us to join this issue and hopefully help reach a final decision soon regarding this.

I see in this thread that everyone feels quite comfortable with the Creative Commons Licenses. That's good. These are all well known licenses (so most of the visitors will already have encountered them) and they still allow us to decide how open we want to be.

Now, I sense here a desire to be as open as possible. And I totally agree with that.

To be as open as possible, the very permissive CC-BY is the most open one, while still giving credit to the creators.

I, personally, am in favor of a license that imposes on anyone wanting to build on the project to share back their improvements under the same license. I think it's the closest behavior to a classic open source license such as the GPL. In that sense, CC-BY-SA is the one.

I would dismiss any ND (no derivative) or NC (non commercial) clauses as they restrict the uses of the project. The ND would totally prevent anyone from submitting any changes or improvements. It would just make this project instantly obsolete or require a very complex process to participate, which beats the original purpose.

And the NC clause is so confusing to me (and a lot of people), I discourage its use, ever. As an example, in the case ODK would be published under CC-BY-NC, I would never know for sure if I could use it for anything else than a volunteer project. I'm not sure anyone could use it for a paid gig, even if it's in the context of a non-profit organization. We could discuss this at length, but the fact that it creates such debates is a good argument to move away from it as it probably creates more problem than anything.

So, it seems to me the choice boils down to a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.

@iamjessklein is very inclined for CC-BY.

Are we all willing to support her in this choice?

xuv commented Nov 10, 2017

Hello @everyone

After the presentation of OpenDesignKit at OpenSourceDesign NYC meetup yesterday, we discussed the fact that the lack of license was probably slowing down future collaborations and improvements. @iamjessklein invited us to join this issue and hopefully help reach a final decision soon regarding this.

I see in this thread that everyone feels quite comfortable with the Creative Commons Licenses. That's good. These are all well known licenses (so most of the visitors will already have encountered them) and they still allow us to decide how open we want to be.

Now, I sense here a desire to be as open as possible. And I totally agree with that.

To be as open as possible, the very permissive CC-BY is the most open one, while still giving credit to the creators.

I, personally, am in favor of a license that imposes on anyone wanting to build on the project to share back their improvements under the same license. I think it's the closest behavior to a classic open source license such as the GPL. In that sense, CC-BY-SA is the one.

I would dismiss any ND (no derivative) or NC (non commercial) clauses as they restrict the uses of the project. The ND would totally prevent anyone from submitting any changes or improvements. It would just make this project instantly obsolete or require a very complex process to participate, which beats the original purpose.

And the NC clause is so confusing to me (and a lot of people), I discourage its use, ever. As an example, in the case ODK would be published under CC-BY-NC, I would never know for sure if I could use it for anything else than a volunteer project. I'm not sure anyone could use it for a paid gig, even if it's in the context of a non-profit organization. We could discuss this at length, but the fact that it creates such debates is a good argument to move away from it as it probably creates more problem than anything.

So, it seems to me the choice boils down to a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.

@iamjessklein is very inclined for CC-BY.

Are we all willing to support her in this choice?

@jdittrich

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jdittrich

jdittrich Nov 14, 2017

I, too, support CC-BY (because it is the most simple one)

When working with CC-BY-SA, I sometimes was unsure what constituted a use which needed the works used together with it to be CC-BY-SA, too. I got it sorted out in most cases, but it was a hassle (particular if it concerned non-text works).

I also support not using NC and ND, just like @xuv: They prevent many usecases most projects actually want to support.

Aside from the largely hypothetical evil company (it rarely happens and even if: Who sues them?), NC hurts a lot of potential users who have decent usecases: Professors at universities, a designer payed to do a workshop, a (not-for-profit?) org who likes it and shares it (properly credited and linked) on their website, usage in many free knowledge projects like the ones by Mozilla or Wikimedia…

More on the problems of NC in this pdf

jdittrich commented Nov 14, 2017

I, too, support CC-BY (because it is the most simple one)

When working with CC-BY-SA, I sometimes was unsure what constituted a use which needed the works used together with it to be CC-BY-SA, too. I got it sorted out in most cases, but it was a hassle (particular if it concerned non-text works).

I also support not using NC and ND, just like @xuv: They prevent many usecases most projects actually want to support.

Aside from the largely hypothetical evil company (it rarely happens and even if: Who sues them?), NC hurts a lot of potential users who have decent usecases: Professors at universities, a designer payed to do a workshop, a (not-for-profit?) org who likes it and shares it (properly credited and linked) on their website, usage in many free knowledge projects like the ones by Mozilla or Wikimedia…

More on the problems of NC in this pdf

@iamjessklein

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@iamjessklein

iamjessklein Nov 15, 2017

Contributor

Okay, let's go with CC-BY and get this up on the website (I'll write another issue for us).

To confirm, here's the link from Creative Commons on the license.

screen shot 2017-11-15 at 4 09 31 pm

I also hopped on the creative commons slack channel and had this validating conversation:

screen shot 2017-11-15 at 4 12 45 pm

Contributor

iamjessklein commented Nov 15, 2017

Okay, let's go with CC-BY and get this up on the website (I'll write another issue for us).

To confirm, here's the link from Creative Commons on the license.

screen shot 2017-11-15 at 4 09 31 pm

I also hopped on the creative commons slack channel and had this validating conversation:

screen shot 2017-11-15 at 4 12 45 pm

@iamjessklein

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@iamjessklein

iamjessklein Nov 15, 2017

Contributor

I'm closing this issue.
Our next action item is in #275

Thanks everyone for the thoughtful conversation! cc/ @jdittrich @xuv @susanjrobertson @ajpiano @mjchamplin @LauraHilliger

Contributor

iamjessklein commented Nov 15, 2017

I'm closing this issue.
Our next action item is in #275

Thanks everyone for the thoughtful conversation! cc/ @jdittrich @xuv @susanjrobertson @ajpiano @mjchamplin @LauraHilliger

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment