On Wed, Apr 11, 2018, at 23:46, Glenn McIntosh wrote: > Hakyll is under a 3 clause BSD licence. > https://github.com/jaspervdj/hakyll/blob/master/LICENSE
Thanks, Glenn for finding that. I hadn't noticed it. I'd looked only at the top-level LICENSE file in the repo, which just had an author's copyright notice, no licence. (Sorry for slow response — I've been a bit out of action with some flu-y virussy malaise.) > > And for my stuff, it's going to be a combination of writing, for > > which some sort of suitable Creative Commons licence would make > > sense (by "suitable" I mean GPL-like), and code, for which I'm > > thinking maybe Apache-2 would make most sense, since the amount > > of code will be pretty small, and maybe not worth the overhead > > of GPL. Any opinions? > > I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'overhead' of the GPL? If you plan > to make source publicly available and reference/include the appropriate > licence, then you've already there. Just quoting from the FSF's recommendations at https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html: ... Now for the exceptions, where it is better to use some other licenses instead of the GNU GPL. Small programs It is not worth the trouble to use copyleft for most small programs. We use 300 lines as our benchmark: when a software package's source code is shorter than that, the benefits provided by copyleft are usually too small to justify the inconvenience of making sure a copy of the license always accompanies the software. For those programs, we recommend the Apache License 2.0. This is a pushover (non-copyleft) software license that has terms to prevent contributors and distributors from suing for patent infringement. This doesn't make the software immune to threats from patents (a software license can't do that), but it does prevent patent holders from setting up a “bait and switch” where they release the software under free terms then require recipients to agree to nonfree terms in a patent license. Among the lax pushover licenses, Apache 2.0 is best; so if you are going to use a lax pushover license, whatever the reason, we recommend using that one. ... In this context, you can also read https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html. > The content on the site would be considered separate from the code, and > would not be covered by the same copyright. Each article would be an > original work, and you could use a licence such as CC BY-SA (which is > perhaps the most GPL-like). Yeah, CC BY-SA was what I had in mind for content (just couldn't remember the formula). But there has been some later traffic about CC0... — Smiles, Les. _______________________________________________ Free-software-melb mailing list Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au https://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb Free Software Melbourne home page: http://www.freesoftware.asn.au/melb/
