Wrong licence

[Aaron-Junker]

Hi

Making these emojis open source is imo great!

But you put this Repo under the MIT license (which is also in the Microsoft repo template).

The problem with this is that the MIT license is for Software and its associated documentation. This repository does not contain any of these two things.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be the wrong license for this repository.

Cc: @jasoncuster @spencer-nelson @emmairwin

[DioEgizio]

afaik mit is good for anything

[davelab6]

Since emoji are unicode characters, I think a font with the sil open font license would be better

[rsheeter]

Can a font built from MIT assets be OFL, akin to how Noto (https://github.com/googlefonts/noto-emoji#license) has Apache 2 assets and an OFL font?

[rettinghaus]

Considering the graphics artworks a CC license may be best.

[hkienle]

Considering the graphics artworks a CC license may be best.

At least, a CC license should be added as well (resulting in a dual-licensing scheme).

[hkienle]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be the wrong license for this repository.

This issue may be more complicated. For instance, there are SVG files, which can be considered (declarative) code IMHO...