3 ms·

All personal opinion .. But I honest hate attribution licenses. In many cases it's inconvenient and not obvious how and where to put it Say I made a poster at

All personal opinion .. But I honest hate attribution licenses. In many cases it's inconvenient and not obvious how and where to put it Say I made a poster at a conference and a small graph uses his colors. Where am I to put this attribution? Can you imagine if every color you used required an attribution ? Thankgod Microsoft doesn't require it in every PowerPoint presentation I find the whole thing sorta legalistic and inhuman. You attribute when it's relevant. If you're extending something then I think it's the decent thing to attribute who's work you're basing it on, when possible relevant and convenient. Having stuff like pasting in "OpenStreetMap" in the corner of every single map online just makes the world uglier and doesn't help anyone. (not to mention it doesn't even give exposure to the people who mapped the area you're showing) Id gladly pay $10 to the guy so I never have to use an attribution EDIT: Just to illustrate the horror. There is an R package with these colors: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/cetcolor/cetcolor.pdf https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/cetcolor/cetcolor.pd... First time I've seen a library with "License CC BY-SA 4.0". A library that requires attribution in whatever it creates.. 0_0

dspillett 3y ago
The attribution in that package hardly seems at all excessive, particularly given is it essentially a wrapper around the original work. Unless I'm missing something obvious (which is not an uncommon occurrence!). What about it makes you feel strongly enough to use the word “horror”? My reading is that the attribution is not needed for the library, but for the output. It isn't “creating” that output as such, just regurgitating the original colour map data and the attribution needed if for that data. But if the attribution requirement is for the library as well as the information it presents: > Id gladly pay $10 to the guy so I never have to use an attribution Maybe that is an option. Or if not, as with all licences we can't/won't agree to, there are other things you could use instead or even produce your own from first principles.
- contrarian1234 3y ago
  At the end of the day, it's his project to license :) Licenses that require the output to have attribution? I've honestly never seen it before. Next we'll have fonts that require attributions.. The closest thing I've seen is some programs stipulating the output must not be used for profit. Maybe horrifying is hyperbolic, but it's honestly quite sneaky ... and I'd never notice something like that. CC BY-SA 4.0 isn't really a code license.. and if I saw that I'd not even be sure what that means. My initial impression was it'd mean you can copy, modify and redistribute the source code - as long as you attribute it? "or even produce your own from first principles" Not a bad idea though probably not so straightforward. Doing a quick websearch, I'm surprised nobody seems to have reproduced it EDIT: Searching a bit more.. it seems people just use these colors without attribution :/

dspillett 3y ago

The attribution in that package hardly seems at all excessive, particularly given is it essentially a wrapper around the original work. Unless I'm missing something obvious (which is not an uncommon occurrence!). What about it makes you feel strongly enough to use the word “horror”? My reading is that the attribution is not needed for the library, but for the output. It isn't “creating” that output as such, just regurgitating the original colour map data and the attribution needed if for that data. But if the attribution requirement is for the library as well as the information it presents: > Id gladly pay $10 to the guy so I never have to use an attribution Maybe that is an option. Or if not, as with all licences we can't/won't agree to, there are other things you could use instead or even produce your own from first principles.

contrarian1234 3y ago
At the end of the day, it's his project to license :) Licenses that require the output to have attribution? I've honestly never seen it before. Next we'll have fonts that require attributions.. The closest thing I've seen is some programs stipulating the output must not be used for profit. Maybe horrifying is hyperbolic, but it's honestly quite sneaky ... and I'd never notice something like that. CC BY-SA 4.0 isn't really a code license.. and if I saw that I'd not even be sure what that means. My initial impression was it'd mean you can copy, modify and redistribute the source code - as long as you attribute it? "or even produce your own from first principles" Not a bad idea though probably not so straightforward. Doing a quick websearch, I'm surprised nobody seems to have reproduced it EDIT: Searching a bit more.. it seems people just use these colors without attribution :/