Choose (software) licenses for the project

I clicked through a couple of the source code repositories on Github and didn’t see any licenses. In order to make this a proper collaborative project the code should exist under an open source software license. (If you need help deciding I could discuss it with you but we don’t have to.)

It would also be great if the general collaborative data that is accessible on the website had a license. I’m not sure what fits best here. Maybe creative commons? Maybe make the database of all the machines downloadable too in some way?

Thank you very much for your post!

YES - we need better licensing for the project. What license would you advocate for for the software part of things?

The database is available for download: and the index of undecided machines (file containing the database IDs of the machines that are still undecided) is hosted on github. Creative commons seems to make a lot of sense for this indeed, what do you think?

Thank you for raising this important tissue.

I’m happy as long as it is any of the “official” open source licenses. There is an FAQ at Frequently Answered Questions | Open Source Initiative and can be helpful. I’m partial to the GPL because it enforces sharing of improvements but the infectious copyleft part of it is disliked by some. A simple commonly used license is MIT for when you’re ok with other people using the project without giving back.

For non code Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International | Choose a License seems good or even Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal | Choose a License if you don’t care attribution.

We will probably go with MIT for the code and CCA 4.0 for the database. I will put them in place soon!

Thank you!

I’ve put up my code under “MIT or Apache2”, which is common in the rust community.

This is a strictly more permissive grant than either license alone, because it means users or the code can use the code under either license at their option.

I did this mostly because it’s pretty much the default license in the rust community. I’m no lawyer, but my understanding is that the primary advantage over just granting just one is that the Apache license includes an explicit patent grant, which removes ambiguity as to whether only copyright is licensed or not. Meanwhile the MIT license is definitely compatible with the GPL (as in GPL code can use it, not the other way around), and apparently the Apache license is at least arguably incompatible.

I’m definitely not stressed about the license for this project, and I’m happy to relicense my code however. If it was a vote though I’d vote for all code being dual licensed “MIT or Apache2”.

1 Like

This sounds great, thank you for sharing your thoughts on the matter, licenses will be added soon. “MIT or Apache2” for the code sounds very reasonable and we should go with it unless anyone objects.