Journals like SoftwareX, platforms like xenido

in the sentence "Releasing under and open source license does not mean you need to share everything immediately"

I think that too much time is spent on patents and ownership. This is important but the effect is that we spend too little time on practical aspects and almost zero time on what derivative work is which is the most immediately relevant for participants I believe.

There is no mention of copy-left, as it is a powerful term specially among the free community, may be we should say something.

How to find out what restrictions to include, how is this in academia.
Are we allowed to open source our codes?

Compare the free license in table

Change red on black

But is not a big deal. @Sabryr

in the sentence "Public domain does not provide you a warranty and does not protect you from a law suit"

slide 13, should CCo be CC?

• spend 10 minutes on letting participants consider different licenses and selecting one (for a selected project of theirs) by browsing https://choosealicense.com/
• open the floor for discussions, people can say what license they chose and why

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html

Sixty slides with dense bullet points is I think way too much. We need to distill the essence.

is this neologism intentional in the sentence "In other words: code without license is not reuseful"?

Even within a country it can vary depending on the employer (public vs private).

Currently it is "hidden" in extra material but I believe this is very relevant. If time is a problem, we should rather reduce on the patent side and reduce repetition but derivative work is directly relevant to almost everybody.

E.g., public license releases the original author from all responsibilities, and does not guarantee that software does what it was intended to do; the other end of the spectrum is a guaranteed service and responsibility for bugfixing.

refer to https://github.com/coderefinery/git-intro/issues/129 for details