Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
ODK does not have licensing terms in the repository #223
We should select and apply a license.
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:
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:
CC BY-NC-SA is more restrictive:
I suppose it really comes down to whether we're worried that'll be an issue.
Honestly, I'm always on the fence about licensing!
this thread on the badge wiki Loomio has some arguments for less restrictive licensing.
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?
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
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.
I also hopped on the creative commons slack channel and had this validating conversation: