LICENSE about c14bazaar HOT 8 CLOSED

Oh - I forgot to document the result of our discussion. GPL2 it is. We embrace copyleft: A political statement.

from c14bazaar.

seems okay for me 👍

from c14bazaar.

legal issues...grrrr

I would prefer a copyleft license to make sure that nobody can "close"/hide the sources in the future. Of course c14bazAAR is just a small tool but it should be a general principle.

So my vote goes to GNU GPL v3

btw.: do you know this mooc on the topic: http://digitalfree.info/FreeDigitalSociety/index.html [it has an "epic" soundtrack as well ;) ]

from c14bazaar.

I'm always preferring permissive licenses like MIT over GPLv3. I've seen the share-alike of GPL's always as interfering with my personal choice of licence, but can see the sense of fairness in it. And somehow I always sided more with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU 😉

from c14bazaar.

thanks for the link! I understand his point and it is interesting to think about (perhaps its again my disbelief in the honesty of people why I focus on licenses enforcing freedom). Nevermind, I am still struggling to get my head around these license issues. In the end you two should decide, since the whole idea of the package and all the hard crafting and thinking work was done by you. :)

from c14bazaar.

Thanks for your very valuable input. I think I grasp the major issues now.

I'm intrigued by the nonchalance of the Unlicense and the WTFPL. I'm also pretty sure that nobody can do serious harm with this code even in a proprietary tool. So I would prefer to remove really all constraints to share, modify and reuse it. There's a very small risk that somebody copies and distributes the code without any or minor changes and gets all the sweet fame for it. But archaeology is a small subject with strong shaming of scientific misconduct. So I don't expect this to happen and I accept the risk.

Beyond that I don't think that this only our decision. You too, Daniel, contributed code by now and every contributor should know the terms and conditions up front. I will ask the other ISAAK members tomorrow about their opinion.

Maybe @kacebe and @benmarwick have a minute to leave a short comment about their opinion. I know that you are also well-versed in this topic.

from c14bazaar.

I usually prefer MIT for myself, mostly because I see it widely used in the R community, and, if I understand correctly, any commercial archaeologist could use my code without concern. However, I think awareness of licensing is so low in the archaeological community they would probably use it regardless of the licence! Anyway, for this particular case, I don't have a strong recommendation about MIT versus GPL, you should choose whatever the main contributors agree on. But I would discourage using exotic minor licenses because they might confuse potential users who are more accustomed to the common ones, and drive them away from using your work

from c14bazaar.

Thanks for your comment Ben. Makes sense.

We will discuss this in the ISAAK meeting tomorrow to make a final decision.

from c14bazaar.