What is the license?

[eric-brechemier]

To clarify conditions for reuse of configurations published in this project, either as is or modified, a license should be included.

I suggest:

• to reuse the same license as the original configuration files of each project (Apache License for Apache, 2-clause BSD for nginx...)
• or to select CC0 to explicitly allow reuse without attribution and without the need for a copy of the license together with the configuration files.

[AD7six]

I think using multiple licenses in the same repo would just create a mess.

To me it's implicit that the project is MIT - since it was borne out of the html5boilerplate project which is also MIT.

[drublic]

HTML5 Boilerplate was Unlicense before it switched to MIT (h5bp/html5-boilerplate#1139). I think MIT is the best choice for this project too. Maybe add a LICENSE.md file like the one from HTML5 BP would be a good idea :)

[eric-brechemier]

@drublic thanks for the reference. There is an interesting discussion about CC0 and other licenses in this thread.

Since CC0 is no longer considered for inclusion by OSI, the arguments in favor of MIT in the original discussion still hold.

[artob]

Don't be too hasty in dismissing the public domain, in case the public domain is what you'd really like to do. As I posted in h5bp/html5-boilerplate#1139 just now:

For the record, it should be noted that Lawrence Rosen, author of the quoted 2002 article and former general counsel and secretary of the Open Source Initiative (OSI), last year recanted his previous views on public domain software:

I have already voted +1 to approve the CC0 public domain dedication and fallback license as OSD compliant. I admit that I have argued for years against the "public domain" as an open source license, but in retrospect, considering the minimal risk to developers and users relying on such software and the evident popularity of that "license", I changed my mind. One can't stand in the way of a fire hose of free public domain software, even if it doesn't come with a better FOSS license that I trust more.

See D. J. Bernstein's public domain information page at http://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html for more particulars.

Both Creative Commons and the Free Software Foundation already recognize both CC0 and the Unlicense as valid and compatible public domain dedications.

As you can see from a simple GitHub search for the Unlicense, there's quite a lot of public domain adoption going on here at an everyday basis. If you should feel so inclined, by all means feel free to join the "fire hose".

[ChrisMcKee]

People like the MIT licence as it 'appears' to say, do what you like with it, but its at your own risk. Seems a bit overkill to have to specify a licence for a bunch of configuration files, but if we must I'd agree with @AD7six that a licence.md at the root or maybe even just sticking the MIT notice at the bottom of the current root md file should be more than enough.

[alrra]

@AD7six: I think using multiple licenses in the same repo would just create a mess.

@drublic I think MIT is the best choice for this project too.

I agree.

Also, thanks @bendiken, I appreciate your comment, but I think we'll go with MIT license for the time being.