Changed the license from MIT to CC BY SA 4.0 to be in compliance with…

[zorp]

Changed the license from MIT to CC BY SA 4.0 to be in compliance with OS2 guidelines.

[zorp]

Review requested @janhalen

[janhalen]

@zorp: We should consider split licensing as the recommendation from the CC advices not to use the CC License for software... https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software

That is If the automations building the documentation side needs to be on our license?

[zorp]

@jan I agree, but in my view this template is used for documentation as written text, not software. An old decision makes it clear that the license to be used is CC BY-SA. Currently, we're getting many documentation sites with MIT licenses because this repo is simply being copied.

If this repo and any clones of it are considered software, then MPL 2.0 is the standard according to OS2's decision. I may need clarification on what defines something as software versus text, images, etc.

I made the change because I see this being used primarily for documentation in the form of text and images.

[zorp]

Yes, there might need to be a distinction between the license that the repo itself is released under and the license that any clones use. However, currently we're accumulating more and more documentation repositories with non-compliant licenses, which could lead to external parties pointing fingers.

[janhalen]

Ok.. we can handle the discussion about the included automations at a later time if it becomes relevant.. accepting the PR