jacob-gg
commented
2 years ago Ah, good question... Not prescribing anything, just leaving a couple notes:
I often like the Mozilla Public License 2.0 as a "weak copyleft" license. It says that anyone can reuse and modify files, but:
- If they distribute MPL 2.0–licensed files (modified or not), the distributed files must stay licensed under the MPL 2.0
- If MPL 2.0–licensed files (modified or not) are used as part of a "larger work," the whole larger work doesn't have to be licensed with the MPL 2.0, but the originally MPL 2.0–licensed files do have be made available under the MPL 2.0
That all said:
- It seems like lots of licenses have similar terms, and my use of the MPL 2.0 for my own stuff is probably influenced by my generally warm feelings for Mozilla
- The Mozilla license FAQ (Q18) recommends only using the MPL 2.0 for things that are definitively "software," so it may be unideal here
- From a quick look at the repositories in which Hadley et al. store materials for their various R books, it seems like they frequently use Creative Commons licenses, e.g., CC Atrribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0, which says people can use the material freely for non-commercial purposes, but they have to give attribution to the creators and distribute any derivative works under the same license.
clayford
What kind of copyright to use?