Which license should we choose for editorial content like Landing or Blog? about guide HOT 19 CLOSED

According to this guy Wikipedia is dually licensed as CC BY-SA and GFDL.

I still think CC-BY-SA is probably the best option at this point.

from guide.

Thanks @dpordomingo
BTW I suggest CC-BY-NC 3.0

from guide.

Regarding the version of the CC -if we choose one of them- I'm not sure if it should be considered a v4.

Agreed, if we're to go with a Creative Commons license, v4.0 seems much improved over v3.0. Any thoughts on ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA)? Also CC v4.0 seems compatible with GPLv3.

Why not use Apache 2.0? The fact that a case like this was not described in our original intention to for that license doesn't mean we can't adopt it

Anyone can comment on this? AFAIK Apache and the alike are not usual for "content", but I'm far from a licensing expert…

from guide.

Sorry, I feel I have no enough expertise to decide it, but I'd consider:

• a license close to the domain: editorial content -> CC as @vmarkovtsev wrote #69 (comment)
• a license compatible with Wikipedia -> allowing commercial use as I suggested #69 (comment)
• a license compatible with GPLv3 as said by @marnovo #69 (comment)

CC BY-SA 4.0 meets all of them, but there might be others, idk.

from guide.

/cc @vmarkovtsev @marnovo

from guide.

Why no-comercial? (With that license the contents could not be used in many sites, for example, our contents could not be used in Wikipedia)

from guide.

Wikipedia is a strong argument... I just wanted to restrict bad people from making money.

from guide.

Since we allow people making money with our code if they attribute to us the authorship of our libraries, I think it could be the same with our editorial contents licensing them as CC-BY.

Regarding the version of the CC -if we choose one of them- I'm not sure if it should be considered a v4.
https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/version4/

from guide.

Why not use Apache 2.0? The fact that a case like this was not described in our original intention to for that license doesn't mean we can't adopt it
cc @eiso

from guide.

I found this:
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/ShareAlike_compatibility_analysis:_GPL
https://www.quora.com/Does-it-make-sense-to-license-text-documentation-under-the-Apache-Software-License-instead-of-Creative-Commons
TL;DR: the subject of a software license is the source which is different from the CC's. Besides, CC is closer to the domain details.

from guide.

Was this decided and if so, is it reflected in the guide?

from guide.

@dpordomingo @vmarkovtsev @marnovo ping

from guide.

GFDL seems to be incompatible (in both directions) with GPLv.3
(which we're already using in our core stuff)

from guide.

from guide.

Alright, given everything I'm convinced we should go with CC-BY-SA v4.0.
@mcuadros also agreed with it IRL.

from guide.

Closing this issue. It's settled.

from guide.

Wait, this was PR'd right @marnovo?

from guide.

I don't see any so I will PR it to https://github.com/src-d/guide/blob/master/engineering/licensing.md

from guide.

PR for review on #106.

from guide.