Remove nonfree licenses

[nemobis]

The NC licenses are not free licenses and do not comply with the BOAI definition of open access (libre open access). If you're using "open access" to mean "gratis open access", it's better to be precise.

More information:
http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#which-cc
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_knowledge_based_on_Creative_Commons_licenses
https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC
https://www.coalition-s.org/blog/exclusive-licence-to-publish-now-heres-a-thing/

The NC license also negates the statement that "Because everything is licensed under a Creative Commons license, everything in this repo can be reused and copied". The repository is a new work anyway, so I recommend to release it under CC BY 4.0 as well.
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#may-i-apply-a-cc-license-to-my-work-if-it-incorporates-material-used-under-fair-use-or-another-exception-or-limitation-to-copyright

[jaybaeta]

Thank you for the feedback. To the first point, I don't agree with removing the NC licenses.

1. NC licenses do comply with the inclusion criteria of the Directory of Open Access Journals and its definition of OA; and because DOAJ inclusion is the primary focus of every journal seeking copyright assistance, it's an appropriate barometer.
2. Even if they're not free, NC licenses do fall under the spectrum of libre OA. Peter Suber himself (to whom you linked) made this point: "Permitting all uses except commercial use (the CC-NC license) and permitting all uses except derivative works (the CC-ND license) are not equivalent to one another and --ignoring certain subtleties-- not compatible with the BBB definition. But they all remove price barriers, they all remove at least some permission barriers, and therefore they are all libre OA."
3. Some people want to use an NC license and regardless of my own preferences, they might still need help communicating their copyright to authors/readers. Removing this avenue for them does more harm than good because they're more likely than not to end up communicating the wrong thing on their own.

To the second point, I agree that it would be much simpler to apply a blanket license rather than the individualised ones. I'll make the appropriate amendments so this is clearer, including following your CC BY suggestion. For reference, though, not a single journal has ever actually followed the Attribution aspect of this repo and attributed the source of their notice. If one has, I haven't encountered them, because every single journal I've found (and which later admitted to reusing the text) lacked acknowledgement. So, while the license is important, it's worth noting that no one has ever complied with whatever text they reused and there's little value in expecting otherwise.