Create a license file #223
Conversation
GPLv3 license file reflecting what was written in README
|
Good to add a license, guess we never got around to it... We usually did MIT or BSD, any reason to add copyleft specifically to hax? I guess it protects against someone trying to take hax off the air in the future, but it might make it harder for other experiments to adopt hax in a closed-source copy someday (there is stuff like database usernames and urls in the config). |
|
My current thinking is Apache 2 instead of BSD for things that could be private (it's more explicit about citing the work you used), LGPL3 for libraries, and GPL3 for public things. We just need to make sure that the config is separate from the tool I think. Every package in XENON has a different license at the moment though :) Also, everything tested, maintained, or abandoned differently... trying to figure out what we have to do for nT. |
|
@JelleAalbers you agree? If so, approve? Otherwise, discuss? |
|
I'd be more comfortable starting with a non-copyleft license. There's a good case for copyleft, but also a case against it; and once we add it, it can never be removed. At least I'd like to hear some more thoughts on this before we proceed. |
|
Want to call and discuss? Do you at least agree we need a plan? I'm not sure what the skimmer (pre hax) was license-wise. GPLv3 for the end user software mainly means that people give back their changes if other experiments start using this. For libraries, this is less important since users don't tweak as much. |
|
Apache2? |
|
I just read GPL would still not require private changes are shared (https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/163069), just that if you do share it, you have to include the source code. So then I'm fine with GPL or Apache (or whatever really). |
GPLv3 license file reflecting what was written in README.