search

serialhex / nano-highlight

a spiffy collection of nano syntax highlighting files
The Unlicense
468 stars 86 forks source link

Wrong license for scopatz' stuff #24

Closed ghost closed 8 years ago

ghost commented 8 years ago

I just noticed this because it prevents me from copying from scopatz's repository. [0] doesn't look like WTFPL to me, but rather GPL3, which has a clause that you must republish under a compatible license. That said, the licensing of your repository is unspecified.

[0] https://github.com/scopatz/nanorc/blob/master/license

serialhex commented 8 years ago

He may have changed it since then. When I initially built my package it was under the WTFPL, and looking at the repo, it seems like it was re-built from the ground up ~6 months ago.

I'll put a license file in the repo, to make it more explicit. I want this to be as public as possible, so I was gonna make it MIT (unless otherwise specified), unless you have a better suggestion...

ghost commented 8 years ago

I'm glad you bring this up. I may point you to the ISC license [0] which is said to be juridically equivalent but easier to understand. EDIT: I worded it a bit nicer now, I don't know whether you got the shorter variant by mail.

[0] https://opensource.org/licenses/ISC

serialhex commented 8 years ago

Sounds good, I'll use that one.

serialhex commented 8 years ago

I looked at that, but I think the unlicense for everything that's not really licensed works better, as most of it was public domain-ish anyway. And I don't really care if people don't attribute me anyway, because most people don't (I mean, do you seriously expect your MIT/BSD/ISC stuff that other people use to have your name tagged onto it somewhere? I would hope so, but you're probably not going to sue someone if they didn't and you had the ability too)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention! Take care!

linkage: http://unlicense.org/

ghost commented 8 years ago

I mean, do you seriously expect your MIT/BSD/ISC stuff that other people use to have your name tagged onto it somewhere?

Uh, I'm not necessarily able to look that up because MIT/BSD/ISC doesn't require users and redistributors to publish under an open source license themselves.