Unnecesary licence files

[tecosaur]

IANAL, but I noticed the licence files under data/ and to the best of my understanding neither particular colours nor colour schemes can be copyrighted (particular shades can be trademarked, but that's another matter). In the source repositories, the code surrounding the colours themselves may be covered by copyright, but not the colours themselves.

References:

• Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 906.3 "Mere coloration or mere variations in coloring alone are not eligible for copyright protection"
• In some recently outdated EUIPO guidelines I see "A single colour may of course be an element of a design, but on its own it does not comply with the definition of a design because it does not constitute the ‘appearance of a product’.", in the newer guidelines the only mention of colour I see is under the grounds for refusal.
• Given the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement, it seems wholly reasonable to presume that US copyright guidelines on colour extend internationally.

As such, while it's polite to note the source of the colours in the relevant files, I think actually copying the licences is a bit excessive and would advocate for their removal.

[tecosaur]

A few more points:

• While I have not gone through and checked all the licenses copied over here, it is worth noting that some FOSS licenses are incompatible with each other, and cannot be combined in the same work.
• Stating (even if incorrectly) that ColorSchemes.jl contains a mixture of licenses makes the licensing of the ColorSchemes.jl package overall quite complex, even if the license mix is compatible
• The package currently includes colour schemes that are not part of a codebase licensed by the creator, and so either:
  • Colour schemes are not copyrightable, and the licenses listed here are meaningless and misleading (the correct position, I'd argue)
  • ColorSchemes.jl is not able to be released as an OSS package