“As an additional condition to the public license for this software”

[tieguy]

Would be good somewhere to specify how this is to be indicated in the primary license, so that scanners can pick it up reliably.

[kemitchell]

Right you are. Just haven't got there yet.

The README should mention a roadmap that includes SPDX identification as an exception. That will enable MIT WITH Credit-Requirement-1.0.0.

I imagine the most straightforward way to apply the terms will be to simply append this text to the existing license text in LICENSE.

[ioistired]

I would rather do it in two files so that license detection tools (such as GitHub's) can pick up the primary license. There is precedent for this in the LGPL.

[kemitchell]

If GitHub and similar tools falsely present as, e.g., MIT, full stop, we have a problem.

[tieguy]

Right. There is no separate “primary license” here - this is no longer MIT/BSD/etc. once this clause is applied.

…

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:29 PM Kyle Mitchell ***@***.***> wrote: If GitHub and similar tools falsely present as, e.g., MIT, full stop, we have a problem. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#13?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAFBIPJ4OFJHGO5DJWSODHDQFRA3JA5CNFSM4IN2TQLKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD4XM5VY#issuecomment-523161303>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFBIPL2FBGS7CGCZGWLYWLQFRA3JANCNFSM4IN2TQLA> .

[kemitchell]

@tieguy which begs the question of whether, optically, it's better to apply this "patch" to Blue Oak and announce as a freestanding permissive license.

[kemitchell]

@tieguy: Blue Oak + Credit Requirement = https://github.com/creditstxt/credit-license/blob/master/license.md

[ioistired]

Ah, my bad, GitHub doesn't display LGPLv3 or GPLv3 on an LGPLv3-licensed repo. It simply says "View license", and links to the LGPLv3 file. I also tested this with MIT + Credit Requirement on a new repo following the same conventions as for the LGPLv3. Indeed it says "View License". So it seems like a new integrated license is unnecessary. It may be easier to apply but it may also cause confusion for those familiar with Blue Oak and not realizing this is basically just Blue Oak.

[kemitchell]

@tieguy, I foresee we'll take this out as two documents: a freestanding license, based on Blue Oak, and the same credit terms of that license, packaged as a general-purpose license exception.

I am going to close this issue and address it in the README for the license.