Closed pgriess closed 9 years ago
Looking at this http://choosealicense.com/no-license/ you may see that
You retain all rights and do not permit distribution, reproduction, or derivative works. You may grant some rights in cases where you publish your source code to a site that requires accepting terms of service. For example, publishing code in a public repository on GitHub requires that you allow others to view and fork your code.
Forbidden
- Distribution
- Modification
- Sublicensing
I would just go with MIT, seems to work for jQuery, whatever open license means do with it what you want, do not blame us if it goes wrong. Not sure what to do for copyright though, I expect @addyosmani has had more experience in that matter, with projects that have started as community bootstrap effort, but defer to him. I can add in the MIT blurb if he has a suggestion on what to write for the other stuff.
I'm +1 on us opting for an MIT license and foresee no issues with us opting for this post bootstrap. As I've got the repo open locally, will go ahead and setup licensing info for the repo and y'all can let me know if there's more needed :)
Is this okay to close now?
Look good in my opinion.
This issue can be closed I believe?
Yep. Thanks!
It's unclear what the license is for these code snippets. My very limited understanding of copyright law suggests that source code without a license implies a copyright by the author and does not allow sharing / modifications / distribution / etc.
I would love to use these patterns, but am hesitant to do so until I understand the IP implications. It would be great if the example source files had a license header, if there was a
LICENSE
file,README.md
was updated, or similar.