search

ForrestKnight / open-source-cs

Video discussing this curriculum:
https://youtu.be/NyOvFSP_IpQ
MIT License
18.72k stars 2.97k forks source link

Stupid Question: What license is this? #22

Closed mknepper closed 5 years ago

mknepper commented 5 years ago

GPL? Creative Commons? Something custom?

ashleydonald commented 5 years ago

mknepper, the license is MIT, it's like creative commons.

MIT and BSD licenses are considered to be much more flexible than even the General Public License. For instance, users have broad copying and distribution rights. Thus, because the MIT license is not subject to copyright, developers are free to make changes to its software as they see fit.

twocs commented 5 years ago

I'm not sure how @ashleydonald concluded that it's an MIT license. As far as I can see there is no license associated with this repository. Furthermore, a list of other people's content is not software, so I'm not clear on what the MIT license would do. Same issue: https://github.com/ForrestKnight/open-source-cs/issues/17#issuecomment-487247194

AlexMunoz905 commented 5 years ago

I just don't think it has a license. It's just a document with a bunch of different courses for CS.

twocs commented 5 years ago

I just don't think it has a license. It's just a document with a bunch of different courses for CS.

Isn't that a problem? There are currently 1241 forks of a document that has no explicit license. Moreover, the author explicitly claims that it is "a curated list", which is fundamental to the copyright. As a result, the copyright owner can impede and disrupt the integrity of any of these forks or other derivative works. A copyleft or creative commons license would make future intentions clear. I, for one, will definitely avoid referencing this list because of the lack of a license.

mehmetkose commented 5 years ago

This is just a list and includes free courses. I don't get it why people look license something like this except Magazine editors who want to steal the whole list and make it own.

Nop, I was wrong. The repo name says "open source" and there is no license. You guyz are right.

ForrestKnight commented 5 years ago

Added MIT license