LICENSE file missing

[opentreeoflife]

LICENSE file missing

[jar398]

It was the consensus of the software group (June 5 2013) that all open tree code would be licensed under BSD, with copyright for each git repository held jointly be all the developers who worked on the code in that repository.

Adding this information to each repo is a known to-do item. I will add it to the Trello board.

Jonathan

[leto]

This is great background info. Is that the BSD 2-clause or 3-clause?

At a minimum, each repository should have a LICENSE file and a statement about who is assigned the copyright. This makes the lawyers much happier later on.

[jar398]

We didn't decide. I would have assumed 3-clause since it's more popular /
mainstream. Do you know why one would prefer the 2-clause? Jonathan

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 10:53 AM, leto [email protected] wrote:

This is great background info. Is that the BSD 2-clause or 3-clause?

At a minimum, each repository should have a LICENSE file and a statement
about who is assigned the copyright. This makes the lawyers much happier
later on.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/52#issuecomment-22256938
.

[leto]

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_License you most probably want the 2-clause BSD, also called the "FreeBSD License" or the "Simplified BSD License", which is compatible with the GPL.

Even though it is compatible with the GPL, the 2-clause BSD still allows proprietary code to be derived.

An alternative is to license under a more "restrictive" license, such as the GPLv3 and then grant people additional access to use the code under a more permissive license on a case-by-case basis.

[jar398]

But 3-clause is also compatible with GPL, according to that same page. So
why prefer 2-clause?

[leto]

It is impossible to answer without knowing what your motivations for choosing the BSD license are and what you are trying to accomplish with the license. I never use the BSD license for any of the code I produce (Leto Labs LLC uses the GPLv3 by default but is very open to giving people access under a different license on a case-by-case basis) but I submit patches to many BSD projects, so I mostly know it as a contributor.

[jar398]

Treemachine is "infected" with GPLv3 from neo4j, so GPLv3.