MIT Licensing updates #1814

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jun 29, 2016

Projects

None yet

5 participants

@MarcBalaban
Contributor

Was updating our company docs for our legal purposes and noticed Ramda was a little out of date.

@buzzdecafe
Member

thanks! we should probably add some other names in there as well, but that's another pr

@buzzdecafe buzzdecafe merged commit 40d3665 into ramda:master Jun 29, 2016

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@CrossEye
Member

Yes, but there are enough people that perhaps we should find a generic phrase. IANAL. Does anyone know if something as abstract as "Copyright (c) 2013-2016 The contributors to https://github.com/ramda/ramda" would pass legal muster?

@buzzdecafe
Member

@CrossEye that's exactly why i wanted to merge this one quickly :-)

@CrossEye
Member

Absolutely. I agree. But if nothing else there's at least one more name that should be on that list. I would love to make it more generic...

And I just don't care that much.

@davidchambers
Member

We could add this line:

Copyright (c) 2016 Ramda

I don't know whether this is completely valid, but it's the approach I'm taking with Sanctuary.

@jackfirth

I am not a lawyer and you should get a lawyer to look into this

The name used in the license should be the "entity that owns the copyright". In the case of a Github project with multiple contributors, that would be a list of the full names of everyone who ever submitted a pull request. Using "Ramda" would imply that "Ramda" refers to a legal entity, such as a corporation or nonprofit.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment