Closed dcunited001 closed 8 years ago
MIT is more suitable for software than it is for content; in fact, most of the MIT license refers to "the software". It's also unclear if it is in effect at all when dealing with (parts of) single files. There's over 300 images in there - is 1 image a "substantial portion"?
It's also worth mentioning you've essentially given people the right to take these images and sell them to others - which could be even scarier when you consider there's personal metadata in those files. Arguably, this means I can crop the personal data out of those files (your name, phone number etc) and sell it to, say, advertising agencies.
All power to you if this is a freedom you're willing to grant, but I wanted to make sure you understand the implications of the MIT license.
If you choose to change the license but want to retain the original spirit of the release, I'd recommend a Creative Commons license, such as CC-BY-SA-4.0. This is the variant that allows commercial uses of the work, so I'd recommend cropping some of the metadata out as pointed out in #3.
Edit: You should also consider whether the image data itself is at all copyrightable.
Open sourced my brain? Forgot to add a license to this bad boy! Oh noez!!
On second thought, GNU license might be better suited for my brain. But, I'm going to go for MIT License.