Adding license https://github.com/ACCESS-NRI/access-om3-configs/issue…#849
Adding license https://github.com/ACCESS-NRI/access-om3-configs/issue…#849
Conversation
|
Sorry I thought about this some more... do we need different licenses for the github workflows compared to the docs - they are both in the main branch. e.g. https://github.com/ACCESS-NRI/model-configs-template uses Apache 2.0 and only contains workflows It seems like we could have Readme file which says, "code is licensed by Apache 2.0 and docs are licensed by CC-by-4.0" and then include both license files? I feel like @micaeljtoliveira will have solid suggestions ! |
I had a bad feeling you might say this! I don't mind but please update all the following ones in line with what folks decide:
Note I didn't do anything about the above as we still haven't heard back from @ccarouge ? Finally, maybe this discussion is best placed in the issue? |
@chrisb13 - this is not how reviews works - you need to follow through and finish work you start |
|
Well, in general yes but I think it's a bit convoluted in this case because those other repos don't have review processes and I took your feedback which following protocol was in an issue, as the way forward? In other words, when there's a change of course following consultation, who's responsibility is it to rectify it? (I don't know the answer to this...) Given it's largely a docs issue, it's probably not our call to decide on the licence? Maybe @ACCESS-NRI/hivedocsteam? |
Sorry, I missed this last week. Not much to add to what is in that StackExchange post, it's a good summary. I personally prefer to have a license header in each relevant file for various reasons, but what you suggest if also fine in this case. Regarding the licenses you suggest (Apache and CC-By), also seems reasonable. |
@chrisb13 I remember seeing these lines in another discussion that wasn't in I am not sure why you are waiting for me on this question. As I recall, Spencer and you came to see me with the experiments repo idea and I just helped figure out in under what form to set it up. I certainly never intended anything with the experiments repo. Licences are here to help others know how they can reuse the material. If something is made discoverable without a licence that means people have to contact the owner of the material to get their agreement on anything they do with the material. People often think the lack of a licence means you can do whatever you want, but that's actually the opposite: you can't do anything without express agreement from the owner. So licences are really about the reuse of the material that's put in a GitHub repo. I'd say there is very little chance of anyone wanting to reuse the material in the experiments repo. Anyway, there is also the question of ownership. If we put a licence that requires attribution, who is the author? Should it be a generic ESM1.6 community? Should it be the "owner" of the experiment branch (this would have to be defined). And I would suggest this is not the best place to discuss the esm1.6-dev-experiments licence... |
anton-seaice
force-pushed
the
848_add_licence
branch
from
8ab9028 to
3f4b85c
Compare
|
|
@chrisb13 - could you finish this or reassign please |
4 participants
Closes #848 (comment)