Why I’d like a “license type” setting for GitHub projects

For "GPL type" licenses, it would probably be better to use the term "copyleft" rather than "restrictive" since their copyleft nature is really what's particular about them.

That said, I'd almost prefer a setting that lets you specify the exact license. The problem is, what do you do about dual/multi licensed projects, or projects which contain code that's under a mixture of licenses? I suppose you could argue that it refers to the "dominant" or "main" license, but - to be pedantic - you can't always describe a project as being under one single license.

Re: Why I’d like a “license type” setting for GitHub projects

#6

Post by simpleascouldbe » Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 2:54 PM UTC

I think having a hard-coded drop down for actual licenses is a good idea, because then we can do the searching and filtering you suggest.

I don't like grouping them into 'types'. I think that's too much of a value judgement. Any enterprise's legal department is going to approve or disapprove of specific licenses, so that's what developers like me will be looking for.

Potential issues: * Modified licenses (eg: JSLint's MIT + "do no evil" clause)

Re: Why I’d like a “license type” setting for GitHub projects

#7

Post by superalloy » Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 2:56 PM UTC

> Don’t you just hate it when you find some great piece of code on GitHub and then you realize that somewhere at the end of the README the frightful acronym GPL is ruining your good mood?

Yes. But what I ‘hate’ even more is not finding any license info. Adding this would probably help in that area as well.

Re: Why I’d like a “license type” setting for GitHub projects

#8

Post by madrobby » Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 2:57 PM UTC

simpleascouldbe wrote: post #6

I think having a hard-coded drop down for actual licenses is a good idea, because then we can do the searching and filtering you suggest. I don't like grouping them into 'types'. I think that's too much of a value judgement. Any enterprise's legal department is going to approve or disapprove of specific licenses, so that's what developers like me will be looking for. Potential issues: * Modified licenses (eg: JSLint'…

A list of every type if license can't work, because it needs to be constantly updated and people may want to write their own, etc.

That's why the general type makes much more sense for a quick glimpse if some code is probably suitable license-wise for your project.

Re: Why I’d like a “license type” setting for GitHub projects

#9

Post by DannyBee » Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 2:59 PM UTC

I would love this, but there are at least a thousand open source licenses. Even if you limit it to licenses that have at least 1% adoption rates, you still have at least 40 (there are more, i just stopped counting).

As such, this would be a confusing dropdown. A free form text field with autocomplete (and synonyms, so if you typed "general public license", it would still autocomplete GPL.

Re: Why I’d like a “license type” setting for GitHub projects

#10

Post by madrobby » Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 2:59 PM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #5

For "GPL type" licenses, it would probably be better to use the term "copyleft" rather than "restrictive" since their copyleft nature is really what's particular about them. That said, I'd almost prefer a setting that lets you specify the exact license. The problem is, what do you do about dual/multi licensed projects, or projects which contain code that's under a mixture of licenses? I suppose you could argue that i…

Many people don't know what "copyleft" is, so "restrictive" makes more sense. There are more restrictions.

For complex situations, you can always choose "other". As stated in my article, this isn't a replacement for a project's LICENSE file.