add LICENSE file
#321
add LICENSE file
#321
Conversation
BuckarooBanzay
added
Enhancement
Click for detailed source code test coverage reportTest coverage report for Technic CNC 87.36% in 11/14 files:Test coverage report for technic chests 45.49% in 6/6 files:Test coverage report for technic 66.04% in 96/96 files:Raw test runner output for geeks:CNC: Chests: Technic: |
|
But what about the media licenses? Do we have to add all of them, or just one? https://github.com/mt-mods/technic/blob/master/technic/README.md Also, should we change |
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
|
AFAIK WTFPL allows anyone to relicense WTFPL licensed stuff using any license they want. I would vote for permissive open source license like MIT Expat license for example. For some restrictions and some consistency across technic repo stuff I'd be fine with LGPL too. However not exactly sure if all of the technic_chests mod stuff is WTFPL or if some stuff (textures maybe) been grabbed from somewhere else and requires inclusion of original licenses? |
|
I'm most for GPL than LGPL, but it's still a good choice. |
|
What's the plan now ? |
uh, not sure 🤷 i don't think we have a consensus (yet)
can we even change that without getting every contributor on board first?
ok, yeah, looks like we can :) Anyway: i think relicensing might be a minefield ("license" section in the readme):
|
LICENSE file isn't really universally canonical source for licenses even if some software see it as such. Also no matter what CDB requires it still wont be canonical source for licensing information so it also does not matter in the end. I'd say just leave readme untouched as is for now and replace WTFPL with LGPL v2 or later. In other words fill in/finish/cleanup LICENSE file contents and then just merge this. |
|
If licenses are compatible then let's do a vote ? We'll have to fix that soon for 2.0 |
|
Actually thinking a bit about it if we'd want to somewhat respect original authors license choice then using CC0 would probably be best license replacement for WTFPL licensed media. |
|
Let's resume ! Previous proposals in the discussion :
My favorites :
|
|
LGPL content should not be changed because it is original license, has no issues and would create complicated dual licensing situation for already copyrighted and licensed code. Issues are mainly with WTFPL license and for that closest that is generally accepted for CDB is probably CC0. Relicensing WTFPL licensed stuff with GPL in my opinion is way too restrictive and would not reflect assumed original authors public domain (WTFPL) ideology in any way but instead would be directly against it restricting use and sharing in many ways. Also I could see many issues if dual licensing anything with both GPL and WTFPL (we can't remove WTFPL, we can only add something and advertise it). |
adds a
LICENSEfile from the LGPL2.1 template (looks like this is now a requirement for future mods on the cdb 🤷)