Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Nov 13, 2021. It is now read-only.

Conversation

@waldyrious
Copy link
Contributor

It's not strictly required, but it's useful metadata, and part of the recommended license template text (see http://choosealicense.com/licenses/isc/ and https://opensource.org/licenses/isc-license)

It's not strictly required, but it's useful metadata, and part of the recommended license template text (see http://choosealicense.com/licenses/isc/ and https://opensource.org/licenses/isc-license)
@jung-kurt
Copy link
Owner

Good idea. I just committed the change using the MIT license. I will look into ISC license.

@jung-kurt jung-kurt closed this Jun 30, 2016
@waldyrious
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jung-kurt the license text currently at the LICENSE file is the ISC license. The MIT has additional clauses (which were necessary at the time it was created, but are now redundant due to the Berne convention). Compare: MIT vs ISC.

@jung-kurt
Copy link
Owner

Maybe, but at least the project is in good company with MIT: Open source license usage on GitHub.com

@waldyrious
Copy link
Contributor Author

waldyrious commented Jun 30, 2016

@jung-kurt definitely, feel free to use the MIT, which is a neat license on its own right :) I'm just saying the license title and the license body don't currently match: the title says it's the MIT license, but the body is the text of the ISC license. So one or the other should be changed. If you want I can make another PR adjusting that.

@jung-kurt jung-kurt reopened this Jun 30, 2016
@jung-kurt jung-kurt merged commit 20365d9 into jung-kurt:master Jun 30, 2016
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants