CC BY 4.0

[jamesray1]

No description provided.

[pirapira]

This kind of file needs to be approved by everybody who made substantial contributions to this repository.

[jamesray1]

@bobsummerwill, @Souptacular, @hughlang, @gmkung, @zelig, @pipermerriam, @yann300, @jjmstark, @chriseth, @5chdn, @ethers

[bobsummerwill]

So we never agreed to a license? Well that was stupid.

IMHO we should use a Creative Commons license, if anything.

[jamesray1]

@bobsummerwill AIUI, an unlicense is pretty much the same as a CC4.0 license.

[jamesray1]

This is the unlicense template:

This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain.

Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or
distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled
binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any
means.

In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors
of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the
software to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit
of the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and
successors. We intend this dedication to be an overt act of
relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights to this
software under copyright law.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

For more information, please refer to http://unlicense.org

[jamesray1]

OK, it's not the same as CC4.0.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

I guess the latter is better.

[jamesray1]

Github doesn't have a license template for Creative Commons 4.0, but I've made one:

The license for this repository is Creative Commons 4.0.

A human-readable summary (and not a substitute) of the license is here.

The license is here.

[5chdn]

I'm fine with CC BY 4.0

[bobsummerwill]

Me too.

[pipermerriam]

I'm fine with this change.

[bobsummerwill]

@zelig was a major contributor too (by volume of content, not changelist count). And @hudson too.

If Hudson and Viktor give their thumbs up then I think we are probably OK to proceed.

I doubt anybody would have any objection to CC licensing.

[Souptacular]

I'm fine with the license being added.

[jjmstark]

fwiw also fine with the license :)

[jamesray1]

I should mention that we should use CC BY-SA 4.0, where the major difference to CC BY 4.0 is: "Each SA license permits that you license adapations under any later version of the same CC license."

[bobsummerwill]

Please can you squash the PR? Thanks!

[bobsummerwill]

And @gavofyork just used CC BY-SA 4.0 for the Yellow Paper too (thanks, Gav).

[jamesray1]

It might be good to get @zelig's approval before merging.

[jamesray1]

I just sent him a tweet as well.

[jamesray1]

Also @hughlang and @gmkung have more commits than Victor Tron, but may not have committed more sloc.

[pirapira]

@jamesray1 please squash the commits (read about git rebase -i).

Currently, the commit history looks like, UNLICENSE was added and later changed into CC4. So, somebody might fork off a branch from the UNLICENSE commit and start something. That's not intended, right?

[jamesray1]

Sorry I can't figure out how to do that, I completed the rebase in Bash but can't figure out how to merge it.