Also, a key problem that some of those “ideal” colour choices run into is how many people out there have shockingly bad screens, or half decent screens setup oddly for their lighting environment. What looks more pleasant on my screen and yours, using choices that are not “all over the colour wheel” might result in things not looking different enough on other people's screens. Sometimes it is fine when the colours are next to each other, but not when they are shown alone or on the same display but far apart. The “same display but far apart” can be an issue itself with really bad displays, with, for example, two colours that look distinct in one corner looking almost identical in another or in the middle.
A milder symptom of the issue is that even for people with good enough screens setup reasonably well, there will be differences between them that compound the fact that we all perceive what is good in colour selections slightly differently to become an obvious example of the adage “you can't please everyone all the time”.
> the license/attribution-requirement is kinda annoying
There might be circumstances where it is a mild inconvenience, but I don't see the attribution clause of CC-BY to be at all arduous. Though I would suggest they change the text to explicitly mention v4 (the link does, but the text doesn't) – earlier versions of the BY licences had an accidental trap that could be used by unpleasantly by legal trolls in some jurisdictions (ref: https://creativecommons.org/2022/02/08/copyleft-trolls/)
All personal opinion .. But I honest hate attribution licenses. In many cases it's inconvenient and not obvious how and where to put it
Say I made a poster at a conference and a small graph uses his colors. Where am I to put this attribution? Can you imagine if every color you used required an attribution ? Thankgod Microsoft doesn't require it in every PowerPoint presentation
I find the whole thing sorta legalistic and inhuman. You attribute when it's relevant. If you're extending something then I think it's the decent thing to attribute who's work you're basing it on, when possible relevant and convenient. Having stuff like pasting in "OpenStreetMap" in the corner of every single map online just makes the world uglier and doesn't help anyone. (not to mention it doesn't even give exposure to the people who mapped the area you're showing)
Id gladly pay $10 to the guy so I never have to use an attribution
The attribution in that package hardly seems at all excessive, particularly given is it essentially a wrapper around the original work. Unless I'm missing something obvious (which is not an uncommon occurrence!). What about it makes you feel strongly enough to use the word “horror”?
My reading is that the attribution is not needed for the library, but for the output. It isn't “creating” that output as such, just regurgitating the original colour map data and the attribution needed if for that data.
But if the attribution requirement is for the library as well as the information it presents:
> Id gladly pay $10 to the guy so I never have to use an attribution
Maybe that is an option. Or if not, as with all licences we can't/won't agree to, there are other things you could use instead or even produce your own from first principles.
At the end of the day, it's his project to license :)
Licenses that require the output to have attribution? I've honestly never seen it before. Next we'll have fonts that require attributions.. The closest thing I've seen is some programs stipulating the output must not be used for profit. Maybe horrifying is hyperbolic, but it's honestly quite sneaky ... and I'd never notice something like that. CC BY-SA 4.0 isn't really a code license.. and if I saw that I'd not even be sure what that means. My initial impression was it'd mean you can copy, modify and redistribute the source code - as long as you attribute it?
"or even produce your own from first principles"
Not a bad idea though probably not so straightforward. Doing a quick websearch, I'm surprised nobody seems to have reproduced it
EDIT: Searching a bit more.. it seems people just use these colors without attribution :/
A milder symptom of the issue is that even for people with good enough screens setup reasonably well, there will be differences between them that compound the fact that we all perceive what is good in colour selections slightly differently to become an obvious example of the adage “you can't please everyone all the time”.
> the license/attribution-requirement is kinda annoying
There might be circumstances where it is a mild inconvenience, but I don't see the attribution clause of CC-BY to be at all arduous. Though I would suggest they change the text to explicitly mention v4 (the link does, but the text doesn't) – earlier versions of the BY licences had an accidental trap that could be used by unpleasantly by legal trolls in some jurisdictions (ref: https://creativecommons.org/2022/02/08/copyleft-trolls/)