[RFC] License the Artsy Engineering blog under MIT/CC-BY-4.0 about readme HOT 6 CLOSED

This repo doesn't lack a license BTW it's already CC BY 4.0: https://github.com/artsy/README/blob/master/LICENSE.md

Doh! Yep, I'm wrong - Switching it to a duel license makes sense! This is the pattern used in Microsoft (And what I would have done had I thought about it back then) here's an example docs repo to compare

from readme.

Thanks for suggesting this! I'm in favor of having a license for both the blog software and post content.

I'm not sure how content in subdirectories are usually licensed but would it be appropriate to add an additional LICENSE file to the posts directory with the plain text license content?

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.txt

from readme.

@dblandin good thinking! a LICENSE file in the _posts directory would clarify things 👍

from readme.

Resolution

We decided to do it.

Level of Support

1: Overwhelming positive feedback.

Additional Context:

Some clarification was made around licensing, and we found existing examples of co-licensing.

Next Steps

I'll open a pull request.

Exceptions

None.

from readme.

Are there any known gotchas/downsides to these licenses that are worth us considering before accepting this RFC? Based off of the information at my disposal, this seems 👍to me, but I don't know too much here...

from readme.

MIT is our standard code license, so it's just the CC-BY license that's unusual for Artsy. Creative Commons is a standard license for non-code content and, indeed, StackOverflow uses the same dual-licensing setup where code is licensed under MIT but content is under CC-BY-SA (SA is "share-alike", which I don't think is a necessary clause for us).

from readme.