Reconsider license

[hadley]

It's very difficult to add attribution to a sticker which limits reuse possibilities.

[lgatto]

Could you clarify a bit what you mean? The use case we envisioned was designing a new sticker based on an existing one, and simply mentioning in the code/repo where the design was based one.

Should we adapt the working a refer only to the content of the repository and drop the stickers? Or what would you suggest?

[hadley]

We dropped the attribution requirement because (e.g.) people wanted to make earrings from the stickers.

[lgatto]

Ok, thanks. I'll bring this up on the Bioc-devel mailing list.

@jotsetung @Robbie90 @mtmorgan - any comments or suggestions?

[jorainer]

For my part I have no problem dropping the attribution section on the readme. In the end, if somebody e.g. prints a t-shirt from one of my sticker layouts I would be more than happy (even without attribution) - it's a nice advertisement of the package.

[rmflight]

This makes sense. The sticker is really an advertisement for a particular package, especially if the same name is present on the sticker itself.

[lpantano]

yeah, I am ok dropping the attribution requirement.

[brennanpincardiff]

I haven't created a sticker for my package yet but dropping the attribution would seem worthwhile. I see no risk with people using my sticker in other ways or adapting from them generally.

[mtmorgan]

I don't have much at stake in this and am generally supportive of completely free redistribution. I'll note that Bioconductor asks that those reusing its logo seek permission first http://bioconductor.org/about/logo/ ; this isn't formulated in terms of a license (we wouldn't have the resources to pursue license violations...) and is different anyway from the attribution requirement under discussion here. But the motivation is really to retain some control over the image and brand -- one can imagine uses that one would not be 'proud' of, and the point of the logo is somehow to add rather than subtract value from the overall product. R's logo has an attribution requirement https://www.r-project.org/logo/ , RStudio https://www.rstudio.com/about/logos/ restricts the use of its logo (and badges?).

[hadley]

Actually that's a good question - we may have miss-licensed the RStudio badge in that repo. I'll look into it. The package logos are definitely freely useable.

[Robbie90]

Hi all, very interesting points! I personally have no problem at all dropping the attribution. All my stickers were commissioned by @mritchie for Bioconductor so I'll leave to him the final word on it :)

[mritchie]

Also fine with me to drop the attribution field.

[mritchie]

So the RStudio stickers are available under a CC0 1.0 Universal license (see https://github.com/rstudio/hex-stickers/blob/master/LICENSE.md). Are people OK if we adopt the same here?

[lgatto]

@mritchie - yes, that seems to be the easiest transition to address the issue of attribution.

I'll leave the issue open for a couple of more days for comments and do the change.

[lpantano]

Thumbs up!

On Jun 27, 2018, at 3:26 PM, Laurent Gatto notifications@github.com wrote:

@mritchie https://github.com/mritchie - yes, that seems to be the easiest transition to address the issue of attribution.

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/Bioconductor/BiocStickers/issues/54#issuecomment-400849231, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABi_HMi55T1JIeBHSggnz_7e29AXLIy4ks5uBAangaJpZM4UnuXW.

[lgatto]

Thank you all for your input - the license has been changed to CC0.

[hermidalc]

I would add the CC0 license as a LICENSE file in the repo. Then it’s easier for users to see it etc.

Maintainer of this repo can do so via GitHub web site by adding a new file and typing LICENSE in the file name box and then a list of licenses to choose from will come up.

[lgatto]

PR open, thanks