Add CC-BY-4.0 LICENSE for documentation and image

[C-BJ]

Unified with Webpage's LICENSE

[mtshiba]

Wouldn't this make it impossible for GitHub to identify licenses? @C-BJ

[C-BJ]

Wouldn't this make it impossible for GitHub to identify licenses? @C-BJ

Yes, do you have a better way?

[mtshiba]

Suppose someone considers using the Erg code base in the future. That person looks at the license notice on GitHub and may think, "Is this project using the original license? This looks like a hassle," and may give up without taking a closer look at the file.

And since the license probably doesn't need to be translated, there is no particular problem with leaving it in the directory root.

Also, it's enough to mention in the README that the documentation is provided under CC BY 4.0.

[C-BJ]

Suppose someone considers using the Erg code base in the future. That person looks at the license notice on GitHub and may think, "Is this project using the original license? This looks like a hassle," and may give up without taking a closer look at the file.

And since the license probably doesn't need to be translated, there is no particular problem with leaving it in the directory root.

Also, it's enough to mention in the README that the documentation is provided under CC BY 4.0.

It is worth mentioning that even if GitHub recognizes Apache 2.0, it may not be the source license, such as swift

[mtshiba]

Well, I think it would be better to know at a glance from the file name.

[mtshiba]

Wouldn't it be better to write what is written in LICENSE at the end of the README? That way, it can be translated into each language version and the cost of synchronization will not increase (instead of creating LICENSE files in different languages).

[C-BJ]

People only need to know that the code is MIT + Apache 2.0

[C-BJ]

People all over the world know the meaning of these two licenses

[mtshiba]

Of course that would be true, but I think the current situation displayed in the sidebar is better.
I only adopted the dual license in accordance with Rust's culture, I don't think that both must be displayed. As long as one or the other is displayed, it is fine.

[C-BJ]

Of course that would be true, but I think the current situation displayed in the sidebar is better. I only adopted the dual license in accordance with Rust's culture, I don't think that both must be displayed. As long as one or the other is displayed, it is fine.

Dual licenses are really better than MIT or Apache alone

[mtshiba]

Yes, it is. I was just mentioning the issue of only one of the licenses being displayed.

[mtshiba]

Thanks!