Formed in 2009, the Archive Team (not to be confused with the archive.org Archive-It Team) is a rogue archivist collective dedicated to saving copies of rapidly dying or deleted websites for the sake of history and digital heritage. The group is 100% composed of volunteers and interested parties, and has expanded into a large amount of related projects for saving online and digital history.
Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 50 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upGitHub is where the world builds software
Millions of developers and companies build, ship, and maintain their software on GitHub — the largest and most advanced development platform in the world.
Switch to MIT license #4
Conversation
|
Personally, I would have left a license reference in the README file. |
Just a gut feeling or do you have some argument/best practice we could/should follow here? |
|
It's a little bit of both. I have a gut feeling that the more mention of licenses the better! Additionally, one of the default rulesets we've set up for this TODO group repo linter is to check the license file is referenced in the README: https://github.com/todogroup/repolinter/blob/master/rulesets/default.json#L8 I would also encourage adding it with the "SPDX-License-Identifier" keyword, i.e. "SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT". |
|
See #12 |
|
Can you hold off on #12? I used the wrong email.
Craig
… On 12 Oct 2017, at 21:47, Lars Schneider ***@***.***> wrote:
Personally, I would have left a license reference in the README file.
Just a gut feeling or do you some argument/best practice we could/should follow here?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
@craigez: No worries, feel free to rebase the branch! |
I propose switching Hubble to the MIT license.
The reasons are mainly that the MIT license is more concise and permissive than the current Apache 2.0 license. Furthermore, there is only little benefit for us in forcing forks of this project to list all of their modifications—most of them will do that anyway.
By the way, I would suggest removing the License section from the readme. There is a separate file for that, and GitHub already shows the used license prominently in the header bar😃 .