helje5
commented
8 years ago I'm not quite sure what you mean by "to be officially licensed as open source". It quite obviously is open source: look, the source is completely open! :-)
Your implied point is valid though, this needs to be assigned a proper license to pinpoint how all the open source code can be used, and it is very likely going to be MIT. This needs to be addressed and it will be, thanks for filing an issue.
However, the primary focus today is to finish missing pieces (and it's not like there are any people asking "Hey, is that MIT, we want to contribute!" ;-). With Swift3 around the corner I think we will soon finish up a 'non-preview' release. That should come with a proper license. Today it is awesome, but still a version 0.x aka a demo.
P.S.: If someone really wants to use/embed the current state of the work, just contact us explaining what you want to do. The chances are über that you will receive an unrestricted license in exchange for feedback ;->
This library looks really great, but it doesn't appear to be officially licensed as open source. I was wondering if that was intentional, or if perhaps you're still deciding on a license? If you're still deciding, I think most developers in the community would love to see it MIT licensed like Node.js and the majority of open source Swift projects as well.
Thanks!