License

[hazeycode]

Sorry to raise such a dry issue...

Would it be possible to apply MIT or similar to this code?

Unlicense/Public Domain can inhibit adoption of this library since different jurisdictions have different laws pertaining to Public Domain works and relinquishment of rights over those works.

[Hejsil]

Yea, I remember reading something about this at some point and decided that all future repos would be MIT. I wouldn't mind switching at all, but don't I have to get the :+1: from all that have contributed code to change distribution of their code under a different license?

[hazeycode]

I'm not sure about that, I'd guess you would have to but I'm not a lawyer so cannot really say

[Hejsil]

NotALawyer

I'll look into this a little later when I get some time

[hazeycode]

:+1: thanks!

[Hejsil]

Yep, it does seem like one would need an ok from at least a majority of contributes. Ofc, the problem is always how you define things, as very few people have actually contributed new code to zig-clap. Most outside commits have been "update to zig master" and the like.

I'll ask anyone who have commits that are not:

• Update to newest zig
• Add X package manager module file
• Small string corrections and the like

This leaves us with @kivikakk @squeek502 and @mattnite. Not very many, but I'll ask anyway.

Relicense zig-clap to MIT, yay or nay?

[squeek502]

Fine with me!

Alternatively, you could consider the 0BSD license if you want to keep the 'distributing the license itself is not required' aspect of Unlicense but drop the 'relies on the concept of public domain' aspect (I've started using 0BSD over Unlicense in my own projects for this reason).

[kivikakk]

+1 from me. I’d be fine with 0BSD too, though I have no particular opinions about licensing.

[hazeycode]

0BSD looks great! I think I'll swap from MIT to 0BSD myself.

[mattnite]

pull the trigger

[Hejsil]

MIT it is :confetti_ball: