Rearrange the licensing module #135
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I really like your changes and I think the new focus is definitely better. I was wondering whether you could maybe make the presentation a bit more engaging by adding some visual content instead of only text. The slides are currently very minimal and while they hold all the relevant information for people to follow along, it might be helpful to keep peoples attention by adding some pictures, diagrams, or other images.
|
|
||
| Imagine that a researcher comes to you and asks whether they can use a particular software package that they found online. One aspect to consider would be its license, if there is one. | ||
|
|
||
| Pick a software package from the following list, and try to find out whether it has a license and if so which. The idea is to cover the list together, so let's not all start at the top! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is it intentional that these are only the names and not hyperlinks? Maybe give some guidance on how and where they should be looking. Should they just use their favorite search engine? Say so.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've added some hints, but I've kept them a little bit vague because you learn better by figuring things out, rather than by following instructions.
modules/licenses/how_to_share.md
Outdated
| order: 5 | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| ## How to share software |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could you add an estimate for the reading time of each of the reading sections?
e.g.
| ## How to share software | |
| ## How to share software (10 minutes) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good @LourensVeen! Couldn't think of much that was obviously missing. I guess you tangentially touch on threats to open source software when mentioning the CLAs. I wonder if we could briefly talk about open source vs "source available", such as the BS license - sorry, I mean the BUSL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License - and friends. I have a feeling researchers may see these crop up more as LLM and other industry associated AI products mix with science.
|
|
||
| Imagine that a researcher comes to you and asks whether they can use a particular software package that they found online. One aspect to consider would be its license, if there is one. | ||
|
|
||
| Pick a software package from the following list, and try to find out whether it has a license and if so which. The idea is to cover the list together, so let's not all start at the top! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| Pick a software package from the following list, and try to find out whether it has a license and if so which. The idea is to cover the list together, so let's not all start at the top! | |
| Pick a software package from the following list, and try to find out whether it has a license and, if so, which. The idea is to cover the list together, so let's not all start at the top! |
(very minor)
|
And I've made things look a bit prettier with the help of some awful CSS hackery, and I've moved the now-pretty license types slide because it seems to make more sense this way. I'm ready for this to be merged. |
|
Ah, sorry Robin, overlooked your comment. Good idea! I'll add that in, hold on. |
|
Okay, added to the speaker's notes because it's probably best just mentioned there. |
In #96 I described a few desired changes to the licensing module, which I've implemented here. The main idea is to build more on my own experience helping engineers at NLeSC with licensing questions, because it's likely to be a good predictor of the kinds of questions the learners will get.
So the story is now arranged around the different kinds of questions they're likely to get, about 1) using software from the Internet, 2) sharing software, and 3) contributing to Open Source projects. This latter section is new. Software policies have a bit less weight, because they mostly don't yet exist.
The different parts are now:
There's no self-study text about contributing to other software, only some slides with notes. Perhaps there should be a text version as well?
Closes #96