License?

[EliahKagan]

This repository currently specifies no license under which the code can be copied and reused. I recommend that a license file be added. I'd be pleased to open a PR for this, but I haven't done so at this point because I don't feel confident as to what license is intended.

I believe the videos themselves are licensed CC-BY 3.0 -- they show "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" which on YouTube is CC-BY and specifically the old version CC-BY 3.0 -- so perhaps the code can already be reused under those terms so long as it appears in the videos. But even if that is the intent, it would be good to clarify this.

Furthermore, while CC-BY is a good choice for documentation and instructional materials that are to be permissively licensed -- as in the LRG videos -- it is widely regarded not to be the best choice for source code, and Creative Commons recommends against using CC licenses (other than CC0) for software.

Assuming that the intent is that this be licensed permissively, but in a manner that requires attribution, and that commonly used licenses are preferred, I suggest that, if feasible, this be licensed Apache-2.0 OR MIT (that is, allowing reuse under either the terms of Apache-2.0 or the MIT license), as is popular in the Rust ecosystem and as gitoxide itself is licensed.

However, if the code here is co-authored by multiple individuals, then I think offering it under terms it has not been offered under before would require agreement from all authors.

[Byron]

Thanks for bringing this up!

Let's start with explicitly stating the current license, which is CC-BY 3.0 (probably), but skip right ahead to the standard Rust ecosystem license if there is no other authors. If there are, there could be an issue to ask them to relicense, I think they will be fine with it.

[EliahKagan]

Let's start with explicitly stating the current license, which is CC-BY 3.0 (probably)

I'll open a PR to add that soon and also to note it in the readme.

(Edit: I've opened #3 for this.)

but skip right ahead to the standard Rust ecosystem license if there is no other authors.

Although I think all commits here are done by you, if the code here is the outcome of the collaboration shown in the videos, such that some of it is effectively written by the co-creator of the videos, then I think this may constitute a co-authorship.

[Byron]

Let's invite @SidneyDouw to see if he would accept a license change as indicated here over the code he co-authored in the videos.

[SidneyDouw]

I have no objections at all about the proposed license change 🙂

[EliahKagan]

Thanks--I have opened #4.