No license

[Maniues]

No license. I recommend CC-BY-SA 3.0/4.0 and CC0/MIT for code samples For documentation, add "LICENSE" or "COPYING" file and add text of the CC-BY-SA text (for 3.0, for 4.0) or the following text: This work (except for code samples, which are licensed under MIT/CC0 license) is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0/4.0 license. You can find copy of the CC-BY-SA here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ / https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ For code, just create "LICENSE-CODE" and add MIT/CC0 license text.

Haxe Manual is licensed under CC-BY, so it's recommended to use it instead of CC-BY-SA. Just change above links.

[ibilon]

I don't think it's not licensed, the standard library is MIT licensed https://github.com/HaxeFoundation/haxe/blob/development/extra/LICENSE.txt#L6, and since it's not specified otherwise I'd say this covers its documentation including code sample as well. Not that it should matter for the very small snippets the documentation includes.

[Maniues]

I don't think it's not licensed, the standard library is MIT licensed https://github.com/HaxeFoundation/haxe/blob/development/extra/LICENSE.txt#L6, and since it's not specified otherwise I'd say this covers its documentation including code sample as well. Not that it should matter for the very small snippets the documentation includes.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"),

Where is the association? Any link?

[Maniues]

@ibilon I found the association. I think that this repo can be licensed under the MIT license. I will make a pull request to clarify the copyright status. I still think that a CC license will be better, but the MIT license is good anyway.