My opinion is that as a matter of policy, official documentation for Julia should be under a free/libre license, whether that license is CC or MIT or otherwise. Some of the CC licenses are non-free, for instance those that place restrictions on commercial use. The Software Freedom Law Center (my former employer, though I myself am not a lawyer) has a few paragraphs on choice of license for software documentation here: https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.html#x1-120002.4
For documentation outside the official repositories, of course the choice of license is up to you. Nonetheless, I'd highly encourage you, and anybody writing documentation, to choose a free license when possible. On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 10:23:21 AM UTC-8, Craig Schmidt wrote: > > It seems like a Creative Commons license would be good for this kind of > material. There are variants to restrict commercial use, that you wouldn’t > get with an MIT license. > > You can choose your own license terms here: > > https://creativecommons.org/choose/ > > -Craig > > On Dec 17, 2014, at 11:39 AM, David P. Sanders <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > Hi, > > I would like to add a licence to my tutorial materials ( > https://github.com/dpsanders/scipy_2014_julia) so that people can reuse > them. > > Is the MIT licence suitable for this, or should I be using a Creative > Commons one or something else instead? > Somehow a tutorial feels different from code. (And I would not > particularly want my material to be reused for commercial purposes.) > > Thanks, > David. > > >
