The License-Choice Rationale

Content and code carry different licenses on purpose: each artifact gets the license built for its kind, so reuse and reproduction both stay clean.

One repository, two kinds of artifact

A Kronos deposit typically holds two very different things: written content and data, and executable code. They have different legal needs, so Kronos applies two licenses — Creative Commons Attribution for content and Apache 2.0 for code — rather than stretching one license over both. Applying a content license to source code, or a code license to prose, produces ambiguity that undermines reuse.

The mapping

• Papers, figures, datasets, and the technical library → CC BY; see content under CC BY.
• Analysis code, simulation scripts, and pipelines → Apache 2.0; see code under Apache.
• The 3D model follows the public/private split described under the public 3D model.

Why permissive over restrictive

A more restrictive, copyleft-style license would force downstream users to open their own work in turn. That can be the right choice for some projects, but it raises the cost of reproducing and citing our results. Because the goal here is maximal independent checking, Kronos chose permissive licenses on both sides, accepting that competitors may reuse the work. Openness that only permits friendly reuse is not openness.

Getting it right per repository

License files are set per repository so the terms are unambiguous for each artifact, and the code's patent grant travels with it. This discipline is part of the same provenance practice as version control; see version control and provenance.

The rule is simple: give every artifact the license designed for it, and make both permissive enough that checking us is easy.