Skip to content

Conversation

@david-a-wheeler
Copy link
Contributor

There's no CONTRIBUTING.md file to provide information to
contributors. Here's a starter one. I'm sure it can be improved,
but that's easier once there's one to improve :-).

Signed-off-by: David A. Wheeler [email protected]

There's no CONTRIBUTING.md file to provide information to
contributors. Here's a starter one. I'm sure it can be improved,
but that's easier once there's one to improve :-).

Signed-off-by: David A. Wheeler <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David A. Wheeler <[email protected]>
@curiousdannii
Copy link
Member

I'm not sure we really want to be encouraging other licenses, things are much simpler if everything here is CC BY.

@david-a-wheeler
Copy link
Contributor Author

david-a-wheeler commented May 26, 2022

I didn't say "instead of CC-BY", I said "including CC-BY". CC-BY is still listed as an option, so anyone could use the example under the terms of CC-BY-4.0. I think it's wise to document how to provide other license options, because some people (including me) will want to provide other options.

This is an attempt to resolve a broader problem: As a "default choice" for software, CC-BY is not really a great choice. The Creative Commons specifically recommends not using CC-BY and other CC licenses for software, since they weren't intended for software. For example, in CC-BY-4.0 there's no concept of source vs. compiled versions, because the license wasn't intended for software. CC-BY-4.0 is also different from the Inform7 license, which uses Artistic-2.0, so anything under only the CC-BY-4.0 license can't be easily moved into the Inform7 distribution.

I realize that this license choice has already been made by many, and I respect that. It's not a disaster. However, I think it'd be wise to allow other licenses in addition to CC-BY. For example, some may want their extension to be moveable into Inform7 itself. To do that, they will eventually have to license or relicense it under Artistic-2.0. Doing that from the beginning eliminates relicensing problems later. You can still document that the entire suite is CC-BY-4.0 if every extension includes CC-BY-4.0 as an option. I'm not sure that a single LICENSE statement makes sense because this is really a "distribution" of extensions, but I understand the desire for simplicity.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants