search

fNIRS / snirf

SNIRF Format Specification
http://fnirs.org/resources/software/snirf/
Other
59 stars 34 forks source link

Should consider a license for the document, and add a LICENSE.md file #3

Closed fangq closed 6 years ago

fangq commented 6 years ago

Possible licenses (permit commercial use) include, but not limited to

related documents see https://help.github.com/articles/licensing-a-repository/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license https://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-50.html

dboas commented 6 years ago

To have full impact, it seems to me that people need to be able to repackage source code as they see fit without restrictions. MIT License would permit this. The spec itself is not software. So I am not sure what is the appropriate license for that. Your thoughts?

fangq commented 6 years ago

all the above mentioned licenses, including MIT, are permissive licenses, although, some of them are designed for software. The license we are looking for is a free "document license". You can find a few common document (or content) licenses here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_content_licenses https://choosealicense.com/non-software/

for example, most wikipedia pages are under the CC-BY-SA license; the documentations in the Android are under either Apache 2 or CC license

https://source.android.com/license

MIT, BSD or GNU all have specialized tweaked version towards documentation licenses (FreeBSD Documentation license or GFDL).

dboas commented 6 years ago

QIanqian, which would you choose and why? David

From: Qianqian Fang notifications@github.com Reply-To: fNIRS/snirf reply@reply.github.com Date: Friday, October 19, 2018 at 5:54 PM To: fNIRS/snirf snirf@noreply.github.com Cc: "Boas, David" dboas@bu.edu, Assign assign@noreply.github.com Subject: Re: [fNIRS/snirf] Should consider a license for the document, and add a LICENSE.md file (#3)

all the above mentioned licenses, including MIT, are permissive licenses, although, some of them are designed for software. The license we are looking for is a free "document license". You can find a few common document (or content) licenses here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_free_content_licenses https://choosealicense.com/non-software/

for example, most wikipedia pages are under the CC-BY-SA license; the documentations in the Android are under either Apache 2 or CC license

https://source.android.com/license

MIT, BSD or GNU all have specialized tweaked towards documentation licenses (FreeBSD Documentation license or GFDL).

— You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/fNIRS/snirf/issues/3#issuecomment-431510864, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/Acon9G94Lzz3KH8Ce0pMGm1mc2yE3eOoks5umkn7gaJpZM4Xblyd.

fangq commented 6 years ago

my preference ranks as public domain >= CC-BY-SA > Apache 2 > others.

if you choose CC-BY-SA, any commercial company or academic work claiming to be compliant to SNIRF needs to include your copyright (or anyone who had contributed to the document) in a document (normally README or master document). if you choose public domain, people use it without needing to acknowledge, which is also often used in specifications. I list Apache 2 because it is permissive and has priors as a documentation license. Other forms are either less popular or software oriented.

fangq commented 6 years ago

As confirmed by David, the specification is released in the public domain. Added an Acknowledgement section to include the names of the contributors (to be added by David).