Encourage use of a LICENSE file

[jimbojsb]

What about adding a SHOULD to the section about the LICENSE file? I know there are some companies out there that have legal departments that get heartburn over this kind of stuff, and encouraging people to explicitly state a license seems like a worthy endeavor.

[calevans]

I support this idea 100%. You can't force people to create a license, but we should do everything we can to encourage that people DO license their code. Bonus points if they select an OSI approved license instead of something like "Don't Be a Dick". Licenses are actually important to a lot of companies. Let's learn the lesson that Crockford's "shall be used for good not evil" taught us. :)

Cheers!
=C=

[pmjones]

All right, I am cautiously and warily open to this, even though technically it is not necessarily supported by the research. Using "SHOULD" is the most it should be, though.

I'd like to include a prefatory clause saying why packages should do this. Something along the lines of "Licensing & copyright are important because of {$X}, so packages SHOULD include a file indicating the license and copyright information." It would be followed by the existing rule on naming.

Anyone want to take a stab at that prefatory clause?

[svpernova09]

Agreed. Too many people don't know the why. Would like to see that and the "SHOULD"

[pmjones]

@jimbojsb @calevans and others -- any takers on writing that prefatory clause?

[dragonmantank]

Due to the varying legal issues surrounding copyright and code ownership around the world, projects SHOULD provide a license for their software, be it an OSI approved open source license, a proprietary license, or other type of usage license. This ensures that all consumers of the software understand what their rights and obligations are.

How does that sound?

[jimbojsb]

Ok by me

…

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 22, 2016, at 2:04 PM, dragonmantank ***@***.***> wrote: Due to the varying legal issues surrounding copyright and code ownership around the world, projects SHOULD provide a license for their software, be it an OSI approved open source license, a proprietary license, or other type of usage license. This ensures that all consumers of the software understand what their rights and obligations are. How does that sound? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[pmjones]

Here's a more succinct version:

Whereas unlicensed software distribution is frequently a violation of copyright law, the package SHOULD include a file indicating the licensing and copyright terms of the package.

Thoughts?

[svpernova09]

Here's a more succinct version:
Whereas unlicensed software distribution is frequently a violation of copyright law, the package SHOULD include a file indicating the licensing and copyright terms of the package.
Thoughts?

I like it. 👍

[calevans]

+1 Holiday Cheers! =C=

…

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Paul M. Jones ***@***.***> wrote: Here's a more succinct version: Whereas unlicensed software distribution is frequently a violation of copyright law, the package SHOULD include a file indicating the licensing and copyright terms of the package. Thoughts? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAaDuttaoVru__ESJIxS7Ko-jLTn62PIks5rLCZMgaJpZM4LL3yr> .

-- *Culture of Respect <http://bit.ly/1tOIyjG>* How to find, hire, and retain developers