Add triple license, CC0 or MIT or Apache2.0

[ameknite]

Similar to #23

Fixes #10 and #4

[mockersf]

I'm not sure this fixes #4, but then I still don't know how to licence the template with MIT/Apache2 and let users relicense their project how they want. I think their project would qualify as derivative work and mean they have to use a compatible license.

Maybe relicensing the template as public domain or CC-0?

[ameknite]

I don't see a reason not to use MIT or Apache 2.0 licenses. They are the default choices in all Rust projects. If you are using Bevy, you already have to comply with these licenses and also with all the licenses on which Bevy depends. So changing the licenses to be public domain or CC-0 doesn't change much.

[ameknite]

Additionally, with MIT and Apache 2.0 licenses, both permit "relicensing" . They are not copyleft licenses, so you only need to comply with the license you select and your project can have another license. In the case of MIT, include the notice and the license, and with Apache, it's almost the same; just ensure you clearly state you are changing the files and that the original template was licensed under Apache 2.0.

[ameknite]

Creative Commons does not recommend using their licenses for software: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software

Public domain isn’t recognised everywhere (like Germany): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29025058

MIT and Apache2.0 avoid you problems like:

• Liability
• Warranty
• Patent use

[lizelive]

Creative Commons does not recommend using their licenses for software: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software

CC0 is exception

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#May_I_apply_CC0_to_computer_software.3F_If_so.2C_is_there_a_recommended_implementation.3F

You can triple licence it.

[ameknite]

@lizelive You're right, I think the best solution would be triple licensing (CC0/MIT/Apache 2.0). It let the user choose which license to comply with

[ameknite]

I updated this PR to also include the CC0-1.0 license so the user can choose the license they prefer to comply

[mockersf]

my only issue is that most people will use the template to create a new project and then not care much about the license... meaning their projects will be triple licensed. But that's an issue with how GitHub templates handle licenses. until we have a tool to create a project from scratch or a template and decide on the license at creation time, this is the best we can do I guess

[ickk]

We need all the contributors to this repository to actually agree to re-license their contributions under this new license! This should not have been done unilaterally and isn't currently valid

See https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/issues/2373 for an example of how this can be done

[cart]

Agreed. Good call @ickk. This should not have been done and given that we've properly gone through this process in the past, we had a template for the proper approach. This was a miss that we should learn from.

Fortunately in this case there are very few people to track down. Additionally, most of the changes do not constitute "non-trivial intellectual property". We might have been able to get away with this legally (I am not a lawyer). That being said, we should do the right thing here, and avoid doing the wrong thing in the future.

Taking the approvals on this PR as consent, can the remaining people please respond with the following boilerplate (if you agree to relicense your contributions):

I license past and future contributions to this repo under the triple MIT/Apache-2.0/CC-0 license, allowing licensees to choose any at their option.

• [x] @idanarye
• [x] @paul-hansen
• [x] @marlyx
• [x] @archblob
• [x] @rowanfr
• [x] @hymm
• [x] @rparrett
• [x] @NiklasEi
• [x] @neosam

[hymm]

I license past and future contributions to this repo under the triple MIT/Apache-2.0/CC-0 license, allowing licensees to choose any at their option.

[rowanfr]

I license past and future contributions to this repo under the triple MIT/Apache-2.0/CC-0 license, allowing licensees to choose any at their option.

[cart]

I license past and future contributions to this repo under the triple MIT/Apache-2.0/CC-0 license, allowing licensees to choose any at their option.

[rparrett]

I license past and future contributions to this repo under the triple MIT/Apache-2.0/CC-0 license, allowing licensees to choose any at their option.

[idanarye]

I license past and future contributions to this repo under the triple MIT/Apache-2.0/CC-0 license, allowing licensees to choose any at their option.

[DGriffin91]

I license past and future contributions to this repo under the triple MIT/Apache-2.0/CC-0 license, allowing licensees to choose any at their option.

@cart Does this statement mean that the included Bevy logo is now public domain?

[paul-hansen]

I license past and future contributions to this repo under the triple MIT/Apache-2.0/CC-0 license, allowing licensees to choose any at their option.

[marlyx]

I license past and future contributions to this repo under the triple MIT/Apache-2.0/CC-0 license, allowing licensees to choose any at their option.

[neosam]

I license past and future contributions to this repo under the triple MIT/Apache-2.0/CC-0 license, allowing licensees to choose any at their option.

[ickk]

@claudijo You have one open PR against this repository, so please also consider the relicense as per above: https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy_github_ci_template/pull/42#issuecomment-1837295964

[NiklasEi]

I license past and future contributions to this repo under the triple MIT/Apache-2.0/CC-0 license, allowing licensees to choose any at their option.

[claudijo]

I license past and future contributions to this repo under the triple MIT/Apache-2.0/CC-0 license, allowing licensees to choose any at their option.

[cart]

Does this statement mean that the included Bevy logo is now public domain?

Nope. I didn't contribute it to the repo so that doesn't fall under my statement. We should remove it as the Bevy Logo is not CC0.

[cart]

I'm checking the @archblob box because a single version number bump is definitely "trivial".

[cart]

With that, we're done!