Dedicate this to Public Domain

[davidmerfield]

I would like to dedicate this project to the public domain and change the license on this repo from MIT to the more permissive CC0. If you are one of the 14 contributors, do you consent to this change in license? If so, please leave a comment on this issue saying 'yes' or 'lgtm' or however you typically express consent. If not, just comment 'no' and I'll close this issue.

Sorry for the bother.

• @davidmerfield
• @kkirsche
• @mistic100
• @DanielRosenwasser
• @koide
• @riley
• @daviesgeek
• @bilalq
• @onevcat
• @cgmartin
• @lijunle
• @afc163
• @kevinwuhoo
• @zepx
• @yageek

[kkirsche]

Yes

---

Please excuse the brevity, this was sent from a mobile device.

On Nov 4, 2015, at 3:46 PM, David Merfield notifications@github.com wrote:

I would like to change the license on this repo from MIT to the more permissive Unlicense. Do the 14 other contributors consent to this change? If so, please leave a comment on this issue saying 'yes' or 'lgtm' or however you typically express consent. If not, just comment 'no' and I'll close this issue.

Sorry for the bother.

[✔] @davidmerfield
[ ] @bilalq
[ ] @mistic100
[ ] @DanielRosenwasser
[ ] @zepx
[ ] @daviesgeek
[ ] @yageek
[ ] @cgmartin
[ ] @onevcat
[ ] @lijunle
[ ] @riley
[ ] @afc163
[ ] @koide
[ ] @kkirsche
[ ] @kevinwuhoo

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[DanielRosenwasser]

Yes.

Tip: you can make an actual checklist in GitHub by prefixing each of the boxes with a hyhen:

• Look
• at
• these
• checkboxes

[mistic100]

yes

---

I'm not familiar with licences, does this have an effect on projects that share the "intellectual algorithm" or whatever we can call this (like https://github.com/mistic100/RandomColor.php) ?

[mistic100]

BTW I read some arguments against using Unlicense
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/147111/what-is-wrong-with-the-unlicense
docopt/docopt.rs#1
FYI

[riley]

👍 I'm also not super familiar with licenses, but it looks fine.

[DanielRosenwasser]

BTW I read some arguments against using Unlicense

For what it's worth, I agree for the same reasons; a new license will hurt more than it helps for people in other countries. If you want more permissive than MIT, I'd suggest Apache 2. Ultimately I'd like to respect that it's your project though, so it's your call.

[koide]

I don't really like the Unlicense much (I think it might end up being
trouble in the long run), but my contribution is certainly not significant
enough to give me the moral right to block the original author's desire.

I would certainly have made the change anyway if the code had been
unlicensed by then.

As long as it doesn't go proprietary, I'm okay.

Summing up, this is a long and contrived yes.

V.

El mié., 4 de nov. de 2015 22:43, Daniel Rosenwasser <
notifications@github.com> escribió:

BTW I read some arguments against using Unlicense

For what it's worth, I agree for the same reasons; a new license will hurt
more than it helps for people in other countries. If you want more
permissive than MIT, I'd suggest Apache 2. Ultimately I'd like to respect
that it's your project though, so it's your call.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#52 (comment)
.

[davidmerfield]

It seems CC0 is the better solution and recommended by the FSF. I was unaware that the unlicense is illegal in Germany. I've updated the initial comment.

Sorry for taking this time out of all of your work days for this rather trivial issue – I'm trying to move all of my personal projects to the public domain.

@koide Never, ever, ever, would this go proprietary
@DanielRosenwasser Thanks for the tip!

[daviesgeek]

Yes

[bilalq]

Yes

[onevcat]

No problem for me.

[lijunle]

Yes

Mine is trivial changes, please go ahead with it.

Thanks!

[afc163]

Yes 🎅

[cgmartin]

Yes 👍

[kevinwuhoo]

Sounds great!

[zepx]

I think you have the biggest say, but I'm ok for it!

[yageek]

Fine for me

[davidmerfield]

Thanks everyone!