Closed WilliamBerryiii closed 7 years ago
I think this is something the projects should decide for themselves.
@forki - Shouldn't that approach then equally apply to the default license file that is included?
In some sense yes.
Am 25.01.2017 08:44 schrieb "Bill Berry" notifications@github.com:
Shouldn't that approach then equally apply to the default license file that is included?
— You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/fsprojects/ProjectScaffold/issues/284#issuecomment-275040465, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADgNGwI_HWheKEjtiKkXqIFIwp3rj0jks5rVv1xgaJpZM4Ls9Mj .
Yeah, that's a good case for removing the default license file. If this were a Forge-like tool rather than a "clone-and-get-going" repo (with no automation of its own), I'd say "present a license-picker", but since this project could be a base for any number or variety of other projects, it's probably better to be unopinionated about what license is the "fallback".
yes a license picker would be nice
I think we should add a default Code of Conduct to the scaffold to reinforce our dedication to positive and supportive community development. Perhaps this one (http://contributor-covenant.org/), which has been widely adopted?