Require some clarification on license

[ioquatix]

Hi, sorry if this seems a bit pedantic, but on the project you say you use the MIT license, but then the actual license doesn't look like the MIT license and you have a link to another completely separate license. This is project really released under the MIT license?

[yokolet]

Sorry for taking log to get back to you, and thanks for tinkering about my confusing license description.

I updated README.md to make it clear. I hope this makes sense to you and rest of all Diametric users.

My explanation is: Diametric needs to get Datomic automatically because all specs should run on Travis CI. Also, considering users' convenience especially for peer API users, Diametric downloads Datomic when Diametric gem is installed. Recently, Datomic had that clear license and URL, so I added to the README.

Let me know if you think the updated README is still unclear.

[ioquatix]

The license in the README isn't the MIT license - it is something you've made up. You should use a copy of the MIT license verbatim.

I don't know what this has to do with Datomic, but if that is a separate project you can release it under whatever license you want.

[yokolet]

It's been a while. I figured out what's wrong right after my last comment. Today, I fixed the words and, now, README has a correct MIT license.
The project started under BSD license and changed to MIT later. README's license sentences remained as an old one.
Thanks for bringing this up.