No license specified for bug tracker contents

[ghost]

The ContentMine bug trackers (on GitHub, at least), do not specify a license for their contents, AFAIK.

[ghost]

According to the provisions of my contract, any license would be suitable, as long as it is conformant for content under the Open Definition.

In practice, my strong preference would be to use CC BY-SA 3.0, for bi-directional compatibility with popular collaborative websites such as Wikipedia and the Stack Exchange sites.

@ContentMine/administrators : happy for me to apply CC BY-SA 3.0 to the meta and AMI stack's bug trackers' contents? If not, then OK for me to use CC BY 4.0 instead, which is the license currently used for contentmine.org's content?

[blahah]

I didn't realise all my contributions to StackExchange were CC-BY-SA. I strongly disagree with it (especially for code), but since those contributions are mine I can CC0 them retrospectively, which I will now do. I will do the same for all my GitHub issues contributions, so at least my content will not be affected by any SA clause. In which case, please feel free to ignore my opinion which is that CC-BY is preferable - but whatever the license we should find a way to prominently make clear to people that they are agreeing to their contributions being licensed this way by contributing on those issue trackers, and the license cannot supersede any license the user has already chosen for their contributions, but will be dual-licensed.

[petermr]

The only licences that we expect in ContentMine for non-code are CC BY and CC 0, and for code an OSI-compliant Open (not copyleft) licence. If there are any CC-BY-SA or GPL licences in ContentMine repositories they are a mistake and will be adressed.

…

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Richard Smith-Unna < ***@***.***> wrote: I didn't realise all my contributions to StackExchange were CC-BY-SA. I strongly disagree with it (especially for code), but since those contributions are mine I can CC0 them retrospectively <https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/270021/177971>, which I will now do. I will do the same for all my GitHub issues contributions, so at least my content will not be affected by any SA clause. In which case, please feel free to ignore my opinion which is that CC-BY is preferable - but we should find a way to prominently make clear to people that they are agreeing to their contributions being licensed this way by contributing on those issue trackers, and the license cannot supersede any license the user has already chosen for their contributions, but will be dual-licensed. — You are receiving this because you are on a team that was mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#16 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAsxS5sPAChmlcWLOmVMAVS6odPjRfE8ks5sC40wgaJpZM4Nwk01> .

-- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus University of Cambridge +44-1223-763069 and ContentMine Ltd

[ghost]

@petermr wrote:

The only licences that we expect in ContentMine for non-code are CC BY and CC 0

Thanks for clarifying. Have applied CC BY 4.0 to meta issue tracker and wiki 😄

... Open (not copyleft) licence ...

Fair enough, but to ensure we're on the same page...

ℹ️ "open" ≠ "non-copyleft".

Numerous licenses are OSI-conformant or Open Definition-conformant, and also copyleft. Here are half a dozen examples, linked to pages showing them to be conformant:

• Against DRM
• AGPLv3
• CC BY-SA 1.0-4.0
• GPLv3
• GFDL
• ODbL.