Karl Palmskog (May 27 2020 at 13:02): Karl Palmskog (May 27 2020 at 13:02):on closer reading, I don't think CC-0 or Unlicense is a good choice, e.g., see the following: https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero
Théo Zimmermann (May 27 2020 at 13:11):Indeed, I am aware of this issue with CC-0, also mentioned by the FSF here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0
If you want to release your non-software work to the public domain, we recommend you use CC0. For works of software it is not recommended, as CC0 has a term expressly stating it does not grant you any patent licenses.
The Unlicense doesn't have this problem and is the copyright dedication listed by GitHub at https://choosealicense.com/licenses/ but the FSF prefers CC-0 to it because it would be more mature: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Unlicense
Karl Palmskog (May 27 2020 at 13:13):OK, in this case it's between Unlicense and MIT in my mind
Karl Palmskog (May 27 2020 at 13:14):MIT has the hassle of retaining the copyright clause, but this could perhaps be done by just inserting the copyright header into the YAML files?
Théo Zimmermann (May 27 2020 at 13:15):My initial preference for a public domain dedication was because templates were examples that a user would adapt for their project, and I didn't want to impose a licensing constraint on this project. But now that templates are a tool for generating files, I think it is reasonable to consider that the scope of the license is the template files only but it does not apply to the generated files at all.
Théo Zimmermann (May 27 2020 at 13:16):Cf. my comment
As long as it is understood that generating a file from a template is not the same as modifying a template and doesn't require to follow the license.
Karl Palmskog (May 27 2020 at 13:17):right, but isn't that already implicit? I think the mustache programs already have a clause for that?
Karl Palmskog (May 27 2020 at 13:18):but this is arguably one point in favor of Unlicense, since we wouldn't have to insert any special clause to clarify that, e.g., "generated files are not under MIT" in that case
Théo Zimmermann (May 27 2020 at 13:19):Right
Karl Palmskog (May 27 2020 at 13:20):OK, I will propose Unlicense and ping in all repo contributors, then we could wait a week or so maybe if they give the go-ahead, or what do you think?
Théo Zimmermann (May 27 2020 at 13:22):Sounds good
Karl Palmskog (May 27 2020 at 13:47):not adding a license at the split from manifesto was an organizational mistake (by me), but it's kinda hard to violate CC-0...
Karl Palmskog (May 27 2020 at 13:49):I didn't expect to be running community stuff, just trying to research this proof engineering thing :slight_smile:
Last updated: Apr 19 2024 at 00:02 UTC