Create LICENSE

[ooPo]

No description provided.

[top-sekret]

When is this getting merged? Or should I merge it into #102?

[ooPo]

It's free to merge whenever, and however you want to do it. :)
I let it sit in case people wanted to talk about it first.

[top-sekret]

At least according to the Free Software Foundation, insignificant contributions (they say <10 lines) do not need any disclaimer. Thus, the only people to ask are large contributors. Also, this license would not cover psp-sdk, so this only concerns the scripts and patch sets.

[jdek]

@ooPo I think this should be an UNLICENSE file rather, following on from the discussion at #73 we have most of this in the public domain now.

[marcusrbrown]

I think any public domain disclaimer should suffice. Public domain means no license, afaik.

[sharkwouter]

Let me add to this that I approve of my changes in this repo being relicensed to this bsd license.

[sharkwouter]

Public domain also requires a license, especially since public domain does not exist in some countries. That's why the Unlicense has a clause saying the MIT license applies if public domain is not possible.

This change requires explicit approval from all contributors who made more than very minor changes, though.

[marcusrbrown]

Public domain also requires a license, especially since public domain does not exist in some countries. That's why the Unlicense has a clause saying the MIT license applies if public domain is not possible.

This change requires explicit approval from all contributors who made more than very minor changes, though.

Got it. That process was completed, I'll defer to @ooPo for the PR.

[jdek]

I don't think anything is going to come from deferring it further, someone with write access should just push it with UNLICENSE or BSD 2-clause as the PR currently is but with a public domain disclaimer as suggested.

[diamant3]

Maybe this can help to decide what license is needed with choosealicense