Hi Peter, http://www.myexperiment.org seems to favor Creative Commons licenses:
1500 by-sa 342 by-nd 318 by 25 BSD 13 GPL 10 Apache 9 LGPL 6 by-nc-sa 4 CC0 1 MIT For me a plain workflow in XML is not a software, its a protocol, like a cookbook. Sure its written in a really high level computing language, but the reason is mainly because computer need to read it. I would vote for CC. Cheers, Bjoern > Hello all, > > A philosophical question - for my Galaxy tools and wrappers, > I have been using open source software (OSS) licences, e.g. > the MIT license, or GPL. > > For licensing my Galaxy workflows, should I also treat them as > software and do the same, or as a protocol document and go > for something like one of the Creative Commons licenses? > e.g. CC BY, or CC BY-SA > > Thanks, > > Peter > ___________________________________________________________ > Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" > in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this > and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: > http://lists.bx.psu.edu/ > > To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at: > http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/ ___________________________________________________________ Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: http://lists.bx.psu.edu/ To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at: http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/
