License

[mikemhenry]

If you want to release the code into the public domain, you might want go with a more formal statement, like the one found here. I'd be happy to make PR with the update.
On the subject of licenses, any particular reason you went for public domain over something like MIT? Or even something like LGPL?

[pvcraven]

I haven't even thought about the license yet. Maybe do MIT. LGPL might be hard if someone wants to release a game, and they modify the library.

Paul Vincent Craven

On Jan 10, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Mike Henry notifications@github.com wrote:

If you want to release the code into the public domain, you might want go with a more formal statement, like the one found here. I'd be happy to make PR with the update.
On the subject of licenses, any particular reason you went for public domain over something like MIT? Or even something like LGPL?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[mikemhenry]

A good plus for LGPL is if someone wants to modify the library then the
community gets to benefit from the modifications. If someone wants to use
Arcade + their own stuff then they can do that without having to release
their code. I'm a fan of the MIT license.

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Paul V Craven notifications@github.com
wrote:

I haven't even thought about the license yet. Maybe do MIT. LGPL might be
hard if someone wants to release a game, and they modify the library.

Paul Vincent Craven

On Jan 10, 2016, at 2:03 PM, Mike Henry notifications@github.com
wrote:

If you want to release the code into the public domain, you might want
go with a more formal statement, like the one found here. I'd be happy to
make PR with the update.
On the subject of licenses, any particular reason you went for public
domain over something like MIT? Or even something like LGPL?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/pvcraven/arcade/issues/12#issuecomment-170389434.