search

PRQL / prql

PRQL is a modern language for transforming data — a simple, powerful, pipelined SQL replacement
https://prql-lang.org
Apache License 2.0
9.94k stars 218 forks source link

Creative Commons license #2009

Closed vanillajonathan closed 1 year ago

vanillajonathan commented 1 year ago

May I suggest the Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal (CC0-1.0) or the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY-4.0)?

max-sixty commented 1 year ago

I've been told that we should not release logos and brand stuff openly, because it can make it confusing for users as to whether a product is endorsed by the PRQL team & community, particularly if commercial entities start using it. We are very happy for commercial entities to use PRQL, but we want to make that distinction clear.

I haven't spent much time thinking or researching this. Is there anything that anyone wants to do that this would allow? I can spend some time thinking about it or researching it. (otherwise I won't)

Longer term, I'd be happy to give these to some non-profit entity that acts in the benefit of the open-source project — we've made a commitment to (edit: not!) use them for commercial purposes.

vanillajonathan commented 1 year ago

Good point!

Creative Common have a couple of variants of their license.

Some links of interest:

max-sixty commented 1 year ago

Great links!

I'd be happy to copy the Rust one, that looks very liberal while protecting against any confusion.

We can discuss on an upcoming dev call if we get time...

max-sixty commented 1 year ago

I moved this from prql-brand.

@vanillajonathan opened it at the right place, but here we can track it & plan to discuss

vanillajonathan commented 1 year ago

If you need legal advice you can consult the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC).

aljazerzen commented 1 year ago

I don't have a reliable advice to give here.

But you do have my approval to apply any commonly used license.

vanillajonathan commented 1 year ago

I also think the "book" should be licensed under the Creative Commons as that would make it easier to incorporate materials from the "book" into blogs, wikis, white papers, tutorials and books.

max-sixty commented 1 year ago

I guess I had thought that an open-source license is more permissive than Creative Commons. Is that not the case? I'd be happy to dual-license it if so (but we should only add that complication if there is actually a case for it)

vanillajonathan commented 1 year ago

They are for different things; open source license cover computer software and things such as binaries and source code availability which does not apply to content while open content licenses are for works of art and documentation.

max-sixty commented 1 year ago

Do you have any sources for requiring a different license for docs? The first source I found was https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/6110/is-there-any-particular-reason-to-license-docs-with-cc-by-4-0-rather-than-mit, which suggests there's no need to have different licenses

vanillajonathan commented 1 year ago

No, I don't.

But I guess Creative Commons is easier to understand for the layman, while the Apache License which is quite lengthy can be difficult to understand as it deals with binaries, source code, trademarks and patents.

Wikipedia and Wikibooks require content to licensed under CC or GFDL.

By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.

max-sixty commented 1 year ago

OK, if we can get a reliable source that answers "why do you have two licenses?" we can reopen for the docs. Otherwise I'd vote to keep this simple and avoid multiple licenses.

(edit: mistakenly closed, so reopened — we still need to add a CC license for the brand repo — open to contributions there)

vanillajonathan commented 1 year ago

https://github.com/dotnet/brand/blob/main/LICENSE

max-sixty commented 1 year ago

Yes, we should do it for the brand, that's a good idea — contribution to that repo welcome!

Without a good reason, I don't think we should do it for the docs, which are already open source

max-sixty commented 1 year ago

@vanillajonathan do you want to PR the CC license into the prql-brand repo?

vanillajonathan commented 1 year ago

Alright, I'll copy the LICENSE file from the /dotnet/brand/ project which is Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal which means no rights reserved and basically is public domain.

max-sixty commented 1 year ago

I think we want something as close as possible to https://foundation.rust-lang.org/policies/logo-policy-and-media-guide/, rather than CC-Zero