Reviewers of the current approach using MIT License alongside the CC-BY-4.0 License worry that the MIT License is too free and may allow strategies against V². Reviewers requested that at the very least the licensee must attribute V² when using V² Materials. MIT License is missing attribution. Some reviewers preferred additionally to have the "share alike" aka "copyleft" feature.
Researching which License famous Open Source Initiatives are using
All of the above are Open Source Initiatives, with the exception of Arduino
The majority of the Open Source Initiative use CC-BY-4.0
If we were to go with using CC-BY-4.0 it will allow people using Arduino projects to incorporate our projects without license conflicts. We could only incorporate projects that are under CC-BY-4.0 or MIT and not under CC-BY-SA-4.0. For the scope of our projects, that is OK
We plan to go with CC-BY-4.0, because
It is the choice of similar Open Source Initiatives
It requires licensees to attribute V², which is in the interest of the licensee and the V² Community
It does not require the licensee to publish his derivative work (his products) in Open Source. Most commercial user would have a problem with that. Insisting on this would severely limit wide spread adoption of V² in the industry, which is not in the interest of V² Community, the industry nor the user.
VillageHubertChen
commented
8 years ago
Why research again
Reviewers of the current approach using MIT License alongside the CC-BY-4.0 License worry that the MIT License is too free and may allow strategies against V². Reviewers requested that at the very least the licensee must attribute V² when using V² Materials. MIT License is missing attribution. Some reviewers preferred additionally to have the "share alike" aka "copyleft" feature.
Researching which License famous Open Source Initiatives are using
Discussion
We plan to go with CC-BY-4.0, because
Reference
Implemented License on V-Squared