Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Added MIT License #47

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Added MIT License #47

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

andrew
Copy link
Contributor

@andrew andrew commented Jun 10, 2014

Partly resolves #45, using the MIT license which is the same as ar-drone: https://github.com/felixge/node-ar-drone/blob/master/LICENSE

cc @felixge @rmehner

@felixge
Copy link
Member

felixge commented Jun 11, 2014

@andrew I was thinking http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ , any objections?

@andrew
Copy link
Contributor Author

andrew commented Jun 11, 2014

From http://creativecommons.org/software:

Creative Commons recommends and uses free and open source software licenses for software.

So I'd add something like the following to the footer of the website (covering the content of the site) and use a regular software license for the repo:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

@andrew andrew mentioned this pull request Jun 11, 2014
@felixge
Copy link
Member

felixge commented Jun 11, 2014

Unless I'm missing something, there isn't much software in this repo. It's pretty much all content + assets?

@andrew
Copy link
Contributor Author

andrew commented Jun 11, 2014

I'm no licensing expert, that was just my interpretation, we do have a few software-y bits, and jekyll is required to generate the HTML which is why I thought that. Either way, I don't think it matters too much here.

@andrew
Copy link
Contributor Author

andrew commented Jun 11, 2014

ccing @benbalter in just because I'm intrigued to see what he knows about licensing gh-pages sites and what other people have done.

@andrew
Copy link
Contributor Author

andrew commented Jul 4, 2014

Any more thoughts on this @felixge?

@felixge
Copy link
Member

felixge commented Jul 7, 2014

@andrew I'm still thinking CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. IMO it's what we want, especially since it captures our desire to protect the NodeCopter brand from commercial exploitation.

@andrew andrew closed this Aug 10, 2014
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Copyright issues
2 participants