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
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
OK, in this case it's between Unlicense and MIT in my mind
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?
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.
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.
right, but isn't that already implicit? I think the mustache programs already have a clause for that?
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
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?
not adding a license at the split from manifesto was an organizational mistake (by me), but it's kinda hard to violate CC-0...
I didn't expect to be running community stuff, just trying to research this proof engineering thing :slight_smile:
Last updated: Jun 03 2023 at 17:29 UTC