Upgrade to free software license

Hi DuckDuckGo Team,
you are currently using the CC BY-NC-SA license for this project.

The Free Software Foundation recommends that some Creative Commons licenses should be avoided. Hence, I suggest this project could benefit from transitioning to a free software license before your start further development stages.

For you comfort, a guide to ease this transition is already available here.

Best regards,
Lorenzo

I think they're using creative commons to be able to commercially license the data/system while allowing non-profit research use without charging

@HugoDF I don't think Lorenzo is saying they shouldn't use CC, he's saying that they should use CC BY-NC-*; GNU doesn't say don't use all CC licenses, they said the CC BY-ND and BY-NC because these don't count as free software licenses, according to their definitions. (too restrictive)

tracker-radar/LICENSE

Lines 8 to 9 in 926b07b

    
           Licensed under the CCBY-NC-ND 4.0 license, (the "License"); 
        
           you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.

I wonder if it's a typo or not. LICENSE says this project is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, while in README it's CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

tracker-radar/LICENSE

Lines 8 to 9 in 926b07b

Licensed under the CCBY-NC-ND 4.0 license, (the "License");

you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.

I wonder if it's a typo or not. LICENSE says this project is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, while in README it's CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

@Robot-DaneelOlivaw maybe they changed license a couple of times before publishing the work, creating this ambiguity. It should be corrected by the development team.

@HugoDF I don't think Lorenzo is saying they shouldn't use CC, he's saying that they should use CC BY-NC-*; GNU doesn't say don't use all CC licenses, they said the CC BY-ND and BY-NC because these don't count as free software licenses, according to their definitions. (too restrictive)

@JGHFunRun I left you a "like" but then you modified your message changing its original meaning and I only agreed with the original message. Please don't change the meaning of your comments after publication, it is not fair for your interlocutors.

The only Creative Commons licenses recommended by GNU are:

1. Licenses for Works of Practical Use besides Software and Documentation

Note: at the moment, this repository does not contain source code nor documentation and this project can be considered a Work of Practical Use.

2. Licenses for Works stating a Viewpoint (e.g., Opinion or Testimony)

Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 4.0

No Creative Commons license is recommended by GNU for usage in software projects or software documentation.
For further information, it is advisable to contact the FSF via email, where the legal team answers users' questions.

Thanks @Robot-DaneelOlivaw for catching and reporting this! The correct license is CCBY-NC-SA 4.0 and we fixed it in #34 .

	Licensed under the CCBY-NC-ND 4.0 license, (the "License");
	you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.