LICENSE?

[littledan]

The intellectual property here is managed by agreements between member companies and ECMA, or by the non-member contribution form. I don't think the license you provide here is as comprehensive as those agreements. Maybe we should stick to those agreements and not recommend that new proposals also grant this sort of additional license.

[ljharb]

This was just the default license github provides when one creates a new repo; I think you're right that it needs to be updated to match, or point to, whatever restrictions govern the spec already.

[domenic]

My preference has been to release the work under a liberal license and let Ecma use the terms of that liberal license to incorporate it into the main spec as desired.

[littledan]

@domenic Good thing you work for an ECMA member--a liberal license is not generally enough to grant things like parents, but ECMA legal agreements should be.

[ljharb]

Since the only people that can create proposals are ECMA members, and those separate agreements cover patent granting, do we need to do anything here? I could omit the LICENSE, and have it be "all rights reserved", but making it MIT by default seems more in the spirit of open source.

[littledan]

I filed this bug because I thought having a license just adds more legal confusion over leaving it out, as it is neither necessary nor sufficient. But I don't have a really strong objection.

[ljharb]

I'm relatively sure that not having a license is a much larger source of legal confusion, because it means that the licensing is unspecified.

[littledan]

cc @ecmageneva @patrickcharollais Any legal advice here would be useful.

[ljharb]

cc @SaminaHusain