Research a preferred licensing scheme for this repository

[ash-teach]

There are many potential resources to help with this, but a first place to look is: https://opensource.org/licenses a

[Dhuds1]

please assign me @Dhuds1

[ash-teach]

@Dhuds1 - just to clarity: A preferred approach is to present some options here for other students to assess before we adopt.

[Dhuds1]

I think we should use Do What The F*ck You Want To Public License (WTFPL), one because we're a repository for patterns and most of these patterns are adopted, and secondly because I like the name.

Or we could use Educational Community License v2.0 (ECL-2.0) which is an education focused license that is compatible with Apache 2.0 so we could use a double license. I aside from this basic research I am not overly familiar with licenses.

[ash-teach]

@Dhuds1 can you provide:

• links to the licenses listed above
• a clear comparison (pros and cons) between the two

Then communicate broadly on Slack that you would like some feedback?

[nazrinzuwair]

Hi @ash-teach Can you please assign this to me?

Here are some insights I have regarding @Dhuds1 idea:

I explored the options available on https://choosealicense.com/ to find the best licensing scheme for this repository, considering its educational purpose.

I believe the best licensing option would be the MIT License (https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/). It's a permissive license that is concise and straightforward. It allows individuals to utilize your code freely as long as they attribute it back to you and refrain from holding you liable.

Some of its pros include:

• Permissions: Commercial use, Distribution, Modification, Private use
• Conditions: License and copyright notice

However, it does have some cons, such as:

• Limitations: Liability, Warranty

Another option I considered is the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 3 (https://choosealicense.com/licenses/gpl-3.0/), which ensures that derivative works remain open source and provides robust protections for users' freedom.

Some of its pros are:

• Permissions: Commercial use, Distribution, Modification, Patent use, Private use
• Conditions: Disclose source, License and copyright notice, Same license, State changes

Nevertheless, it also has limitations such as liability and warranty.

Upon comparing these options with what @Dhuds1 provided, I believe these licenses are more closely aligned with the scope of our work.

[ash-teach]

Thanks for your input, @nazrinzuwair. I've assigned you to the task as well and I think you and @Dhuds1 can hash it out.

However, I have also added the help-wanted label to indicate to others that they are welcome to read and comment on this issues and provide their own perspective and ideas.

[Dhuds1]

🥊 😺 🥊 @nazrinzuwair bring it!

I definitely agree with your suggestions. Although WTFPL isn't recommended to use, and some company discourage / prohibit their employees to contribution to. In Discussion, in the final paragraph. I like its essence, and that it embodies the truest form of public domain.

With that in mind, MIT or GNU v.3 may be more ideal licenses, WTFPL is the most nonchalant, wind blowing in your hair, blazing on a sunny afternoon license out there!

[kattsky]

Hi @Dhuds1 @nazrinzuwair

Just wondering if you've had a look at Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

This one's suited for educational or non-commercial use. It has a legal framework for distribution that allows others to "remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially" as long as there is appropriate attribution.

Pros: Collaboration - allowing others to build upon our work and share their adaptations Recognition by attribution Educational focus - as set by non-commercial aspect of the licence

Cons: If we're to take a peek at potential future trajectory of the project, this restriction on commercial use may lead to limited licence compatibility meaning it limits potential collaborations or integration with projects licenced under different terms.

References:

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Legal Code | Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International | Creative Commons. (n.d.). https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode.en

Smartcopying. (2021, February 9). Quick guide to Creative Commons - Smartcopying. Smartcopying - the Official Guide to Copyright Issues for Australian Schools and TAFE. https://smartcopying.edu.au/quick-guide-to-creative-commons/#:~:text=Attribution%E2%80%93NonCommercial%204.0%20%E2%80%93%20This%20licence,works%20on%20the%20same%20terms.

[nazrinzuwair]

Thank you, @kattsky , for reviewing the licenses and providing valuable feedback. I agree with your suggestion of using the 'Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International' license as it aligns with our project's priorities, emphasizing collaboration, recognition through attribution, and an educational focus.

I believe it would be beneficial to include multiple licenses in our GitHub repository to cater to different project priorities. The MIT License is a good choice as it permits commercial use, modification, distribution, and private use, with the only requirement being the inclusion of the license and copyright notice.

On the other hand, the 'Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International' license restricts commercial use but allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon our work for non-commercial purposes.

Thank you for your feedback, and I appreciate your assistance in making the licensing decisions.