Missing LICENSE file

[ncoghlan]

Should the developer guide have its own license file?

[Mariatta]

I think so 😄
The same License in core-workflow? or something else?

[brettcannon]

Whatever @VanL tells us the license should be. 😉 Not sure if it should be different for documentation.

[ncoghlan]

Yeah, this actually came up when I was picking the initial license for python/redistributor-guide#1

While I picked the Apache Software License for now (since that's what core-workflow uses, and its one of the inbound licensing options when signing the PSF CLA), as a general principle, the OSI licenses aren't recommended for primarily documentation focused projects.

My personal choice would have been CC-BY, but GitHub doesn't appear to offer the Creative Commons licenses in its default license picker, and it's not clear to me whether or not CC-BY would interact properly with the PSF CLA (as that allows the PSF to relicense contributions under an open source license, which may not cover relicensing under an open documentation license).

Isn't copyright fun? :)

[brettcannon]

I've emailed @VanL to weigh in here on the preferred license for docs and for new code so we can document it in the devguide somewhere.

[brettcannon]

Heard back from @VanL and he said, "Prefer CC0. CC-BY is ok, as long as we also have a section in the docs that points to the commit log as the place where attribution is given."

[ncoghlan]

I'm fine with CC0 - these are needs-driven docs, so if folks want to borrow and repurpose them, we don't really mind either way whether they give attribution or not.