Yes, it seems to me that unless there's a motivation for a different license, it might well be a good idea to make free documentation available under the MIT license, including the examples.
On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Mauro <mauro...@runbox.com> wrote: > Wouldn't it be good if at least the code of tutorials is MIT > licensed. That way it could be used in the mostly MIT licensed packages > without hassle? > > On Wed, 2014-12-17 at 09:31, Stefan Karpinski <ste...@karpinski.org> > wrote: > > I'm not really sure. The Julia manual end up being MIT sort of by > accident > > just because it's part of the julia repo and the MIT license applies to > > everything that doesn't have a different license indicated. Some CC > license > > may be better. > > > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:39 AM, David P. Sanders <dpsand...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I would like to add a licence to my tutorial materials ( > >> https://github.com/dpsanders/scipy_2014_julia) so that people can reuse > >> them. > >> > >> Is the MIT licence suitable for this, or should I be using a Creative > >> Commons one or something else instead? > >> Somehow a tutorial feels different from code. (And I would not > >> particularly want my material to be reused for commercial purposes.) > >> > >> Thanks, > >> David. > >> > >
