-
It looks like the existing images have an images_by_ott `licence` field like:
```
CC-BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)
CC-BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2…
-
25161 updated
4 years ago
-
Hello everyone,
First of all, thanks a lot for putting in the work to compile these great datasets. This is very much appreciated! :) Without a doubt this is the best data source for SA COVID data.…
-
At the moment, the whole repository is licensed under MIT, which is still valid for the source code part of the containing files. However, we should release the creative content (especially our blog p…
-
I believe that sharing this work under [CC BY-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) would be much more positive than the current CC BY-NC 4.0.
Anecdotally, we mentioned what we l…
mkcor updated
6 years ago
-
I suggest that we license this repo under [CC BY-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).
@hlandau @phelixbtc @brandonrobertz @skifree-snowmonster @cassiniNMC @ahmedbodi Is this ok…
-
### Problem Description
The [current documentation](https://doc.sagemath.org) is licensed under Creative Commons Share Alike 3.0.
The 3.0 version was designed mainly for U.S. legal framework, has …
-
`CC by-sa 4.0` is typically used for works that are seminal to a larger digital commons: Wikipédia comes to mind.
`CC by-nd 4.0` is relevant in situations where the source text needs to spread verb…
-
Perhaps we can look into updating all repository styles and locales to CC BY-SA 4.0, e.g. at the time of the next CSL release. Making a one-time switch would be much easier to manage than allowing 3.0…
-
# LICENSE: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 | Emily Riederer
My posts are released under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International.
[https://emilyriederer.netlify.app/license/]…