3 ms·

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 somet

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 :/