The page says:
The BrainPad circuit board and teaching materials are all licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
DiverObject, though, says:
Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the “License”);
Is this on purpose? Or driver object does not qualify as “teaching material”?
The CC license doesn’t work with code. We always share boards and books in cc and code apache 2
That’s an interesting comment to me because I just put all of the Scratch work under CC-BY SA 4.0. Maybe it was a bad choice. I want to make sure that modifications stay in the open. Usually, for open-source works, I have used Apache, BSD or MS-PL, because I personally feel that those licenses are more open because they allow for closed-source derivatives, but this is one of those rare cases where I want to insist that derivative works stay open-source. Should I move to a GNU variant? What have you found to be wrong with CC-BY SA 4.0 for software?
Unless succeeding changed, cc shouldn’t be used with code.
I have to apologize - maybe I am being dense, but I don’t know what you mean by “unless succeeding changed”.
Lol unless something changed
Doooooh! Ok. I was being dense. Very dense. Even CC recommends against using CC for software. Silly me. Like I said, I used to use BSD and MS-PL, then switched to Apache. It is very rare that I have wanted to insist that derivative works stay open source, which is why I made a poor choice here. I’ll probably switch to GPL 2 or 3, unless someone has an alternative recommendation that would preserve the same intent (that is, free to use, compatible with commercial use, but derivatives must be also open-source).
@ Gus has worse luck than most with autocorrect on his phone.