add MIT license #95
Merged
add MIT license #95
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
another option would have been MPL 2.0, which is generally preferable in terms of the NGI program: to ensure that public money keeps translating into public code. the decision for MIT is purely practical: to ease migrating the code into Nixpkgs, the place where the software project supported through NGI will most likely be found and put to use in a broader context.
lorenzleutgeb
requested changes
Nov 20, 2023
lorenzleutgeb
approved these changes
Nov 20, 2023
|
TBH, I am not in favor of the MIT license. While it is the most easy one, it is also the most permissive one. However, since nixpkgs also has the MIT licence, I see no problem in this one. The packages themselves still have their own respected license. |
RonnyLam
approved these changes
Nov 20, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
another option would have been MPL 2.0, which is generally preferable in terms of the NGI program: to ensure that public money keeps translating into public code.
the decision for MIT is purely practical: to ease migrating the code into Nixpkgs, the place where the software project supported through NGI will most likely be found and put to use in a broader context.
there was no feedback from Nixpkgs maintainers on the topic: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/per-file-license-notes-in-nixpkgs/32390