Mention copyleft in license guide!

[sneakers-the-rat]

Currently the license guide only mentions permissive licenses without discussing what the alternative might be. I think this is a relatively balanced discussion that provides some links to further readings and also grounds the discussion in some history. Software is political! and we should at least mention copyleft, even if we have elected to recommend permissive licenses - I think we should do so in a way that anyone who reads our guides can make an informed choice.

• L73, L79 - Softened language about "core" and "our" to not suggest that "everyone uses permissive licenses" or "pyopensci reviewed packages should be permissively licensed"
• L79 - Rephrased based on goal of author and compatibility
• Added discussion on compatibility with table
• Added references using sphinxcontrib-bibtex

---

• To see the specific tasks where the Asana app for GitHub is being used, see below:
  • https://app.asana.com/0/0/1206868898696703

[ctb]

Looks good to me on a quick skim! Nice work!

Do we want to mention things like the Affero GPL as a further copyleft license, that prevent companies from taking your software and running it as a service w/o releasing the source? https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html

[sneakers-the-rat]

Do we want to mention things like the Affero GPL as a further copyleft license, that prevent companies from taking your software and running it as a service w/o releasing the source? https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html

I think it would be worth expanding this out into a separate "reference" style page that addresses the history and purposes for different licenses, that's something that I don't know of a concise reference for really. I think in this page it might be a little bit too much detail - i feel like "there are permissive and copyleft licenses" and the top-level differences between them, but yes, the cool thing about our guides being websites is we can make infinitely many extra pages <3

[willingc]

@lwasser Would you please review? The htmlproofer complaints seem unrelated to this PR.

[lwasser]

ok!! i'll put this on my list to review this week! thanks @willingc for pinging me!

[lwasser]

@all-contributors please add @ctb for code, review

[allcontributors[bot]]

@lwasser

I've put up a pull request to add @ctb! :tada:

[lwasser]

@sneakers-the-rat i suspect the conflicts here relate to the pr's i merged yesterday where you fixed our requirements and such. can you kindly rebase when you have a chance? in the meantime i'll review today/tomorrow!

[sneakers-the-rat]

So i'm suggesting a reorg that allows us to introduce concepts higher up on the back such as

agreed :) replied above thinking about places to move that section!

are we swapping rolls for this pr 😆?! i love it!

may all hierarchies be forever fluid <3

[lwasser]

here is the current rendered page i think a clean reorganiation is the key piece as right now a new user is going to be really confused. but i also think we have a lot of great information in this pr!!

[lwasser]

ok let's see - what do we need to do to get this PR merged? I think

1. a small re-org to make it easier for the reader to follow see here
2. and then this comment around ensuring we don't confuse readers trying to navigate the scientific vs broader ecosystem when selecting licenses.

[sneakers-the-rat]

Good with that if others are :)