Adding LICENSE file to project

[jeremyf]

Based on the README's license and the commit history of that section of the README, I am applying the original author's desired license to the project.

License originating at: 252c8ecbe9a2e2a22037a4a0f063783192deb5e1 Updates to rendering of license: 545372365bc7516ce86ec8fd4e8705c53a44cd8a

Those are the two prior changes to the README that reflect the current state license.

[jrochkind]

Good find @jeremyf

Hmm, in my opinion CC-0 is weird in the best of cases, and especially weird for code. None of the CC licenses are designed for code, really.

And CC-0 isn’t even really exactly a license, it’s sort of a special purpose weird thing.

I would say use “MIT” license instead, which is a more conventional way to accomplish the same “all rights licensed with no restrictions” that presumably was intended by CC-0.

On the other hand, CC-0 is what's already in there.... I wonder if there's any way to get @edsu's attention and feedback, he seems to be the committer on the original CC-0 mentions (and is maybe the original author of this gem?)

[jeremyf]

The discussion is good to have, and I welcome any feedback from others. This commit helps the repository conform to external LICENSE scanning expectations (regardless of the underlying selected license).

[rsinger]

I agree with @jrochkind here. While I doubt that @edsu cares what this is distributed as (as long as it's copyleft), let's at least give him a chance to chime in.

I think MIT is the right license, though, as well. It also jibes well with other projects by the same original authors (e.g. https://github.com/ruby-marc/ruby-marc/blob/master/LICENSE). @edsu is also a creator of Net::OAI::Harvester, which uses Perl's license: https://dev.perl.org/licenses/, which also feels like it's in the same general category.

[edsu]

I agree that CC0 is weird. I used to use it while I worked at the Library of Congress where my work was technically in the Public Domain.CC0 is basically the same thing as PD but works better in an international context.

I'm fine with what you all decide to do. Thank you for keeping this project alive!

[marrus-sh]

although CC licenses generally shouldn't be used for software, CC0 (which CC does not term a license but a dedication) is considered acceptable. see https://creativecommons.org/2011/04/15/using-cc0-for-public-domain-software/ and https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#May_I_apply_CC0_to_computer_software.3F_If_so.2C_is_there_a_recommended_implementation.3F for nuance.

the unlicense is a popular alternative for software which does effectively the same thing: https://unlicense.org.

[barmintor]

Thanks @jeremyf for flagging this. My takeaway from this conversation is that MIT is acceptable to the author and consistent with their other projects, so I've pulled that license in - if we feel like CC0 is appropriate, it's less awkward to go from MIT to CC0 than the reverse. I'm going to close this PR as part of a backlog cleanup, but please reach out if I've misinterpreted.