Add licenses

[NeuroShepherd]

No description provided.

[NeuroShepherd]

Hi reviewers,

The OSC is standardizing our LICENSEs across our websites and tutorials. If you've been a substantial contributor to this project, could you please either approve or reject this LICENSE update?

As it stands, there is currently no license applied to this project.

Thanks!

[mkleemeyer]

Hey Pat,
is this only including license information or assigning a license? This did not become clear to me when looking at the files added. We have assigned the CC-BY license in our about section but I agree that this is not obvious in the repo. Would this be compatible?
Thanks and best, Maike

[NeuroShepherd]

Hi @mkleemeyer, this would be to assign licenses. The standard we've chosen for OSC tutorials going forward:

• Written (non-code) content will be covered by the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license. This is slightly different from the license currently mentioned, CC-BY 4.0, in the About section you linked to. The SA or ShareAlike clause just means that derivative works also need to be licensed under CC-BY-SA.
• Code will be covered by a CC-0 license

Because the CC-BY 4.0 has already been applied to this project (even if not directly included as a LICENSE file in the repo), we do need to request permission from all authors to change the license going forward.

Of course, any license changes we make cannot be applied retroactively so the current and previously published versions of this tutorial will remain under the CC-BY 4.0 license.

[mkleemeyer]

Thanks for clarifying so quickly! Okay, just to be sure: The decision has been made by OSC, right? In other words, WE cannot decide to put future adapted versions of the workshop under a different license (e.g., stick with the CC-BY) when using the lmu-osc github? So concretely, we should simply approve the changes you made ;-)
But if this workshop remains unchanged it will also remain under the CC-BY 4.0. Correct?

[MalikaIhle]

Hi @mkleemeyer - the priority is that this OSC repo keeps being maintained and stays the same as your MPDL version. I know you have now a new version that still needs to be pushed to ours so if you don’t want this re licensing for all versions then you can keep the licence of your choice as, again, we would prioritise having a maintained repo over a repo with the same licences as our other repo but that is no longer being maintained. So the question for you all is whether you’d consider relicencing your repo to CCBy SA for the tutorial content, and be listed as author in our standard about page with citation and doi from zenodo with possible new release. We also have a CCO licence for code snippet though I don’t recall being much or any in yours. The idea for our tutorials (those we will commission in the future) is that people reusing our tutorials could give credit to the authors and their affiliations, and that users can copy and paste snippets of code into their work without worrying it crosses any threshold of originality that would require giving credit. Hope that helps clarify the context ?

[NeuroShepherd]

@MalikaIhle can you let me know if this info is correct? For the LMU OSC repo:

1. Definitely include the CC-BY-SA 4.0
2. Include the CC-0?

The repo owned by MPDL:

1. Includes CC-BY-SA 4.0
2. Does not include CC-0

(This is the last repo needing license finalization I believe! 😮 🥳 )

[MalikaIhle]

1. yes, 2. I dont know:
   the authors didn't want to have the CC0 licence because they currently don't have code and thought this would be confusing users. However, code may get included (or not) when we expend (or separate) the codebook section to practical examples on how to do it (with R packages, see e.g. code publishing tutorial from where it would possibly also get extracted/separated out).
   Did we say we keep similar info as in the MPDL version to get a first zenodo release before we make our changes? Once we have that first release we could diverge and if we include code we would add the CC0 licence again? I don't think they were agianst the type of licence, jsut they thought it didn't apply.

[mkleemeyer]

[like] Kleemeyer, Maike reacted to your message:

…

________________________________ From: Malika Ihle ***@***.***> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 1:39:11 PM To: lmu-osc/FAIR-Data-Management ***@***.***> Cc: Kleemeyer, Maike ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [lmu-osc/FAIR-Data-Management] Add licenses (PR #21) 1. yes, 2. I dont know: the authors didn't want to have the CC0 licence because they currently don't have code and thought this would be confusing users. However, code may get included (or not) when we expend (or separate) the codebook section to practical examples on how to do it (with R packages, see e.g. code publishing tutorial from where it would possibly also get extracted/separated out). Did we say we keep similar info as in the MPDL version to get a first zenodo release before we make our changes? Once we have that first release we could diverge and if we include code we would add the CC0 licence again? I don't think they were agianst the type of licence, jsut they thought it didn't apply. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#21 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIROQ4D5HU4LUPCV2SE3MAT2WADH7AVCNFSM6AAAAABVU7BWW6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDONBYGE3DQNJWGA>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***> [MalikaIhle]MalikaIhle left a comment (lmu-osc/FAIR-Data-Management#21)<#21 (comment)> 1. yes, 2. I dont know: the authors didn't want to have the CC0 licence because they currently don't have code and thought this would be confusing users. However, code may get included (or not) when we expend (or separate) the codebook section to practical examples on how to do it (with R packages, see e.g. code publishing tutorial from where it would possibly also get extracted/separated out). Did we say we keep similar info as in the MPDL version to get a first zenodo release before we make our changes? Once we have that first release we could diverge and if we include code we would add the CC0 licence again? I don't think they were agianst the type of licence, jsut they thought it didn't apply. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#21 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIROQ4D5HU4LUPCV2SE3MAT2WADH7AVCNFSM6AAAAABVU7BWW6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDONBYGE3DQNJWGA>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[NeuroShepherd]

Ok, I'm going to plan to take the following steps then:

1. We integrate the CC-BY-SA 4.0 file into the OSC repo.
2. We merge any applicable changes and updates from the OSC repo to the MPDL repo and vice versa (i.e. exchange any content and files we want to sync up.) This will probably end up being a bit complicated with cherry-picking changes, but not impossible.
3. We do a release of the OSC repo to Zenodo for the DOI
4. We add the CC0 file to the OSC repo.