2 ms·
It's a good idea to make this more visible, but they should also make it visible when a repository does not have a license. If they did the UI right this would
by rmchugh 10y ago
It's a good idea to make this more visible, but they should also make it visible when a repository does not have a license. If they did the UI right this would encourage developers to license their code in the same way that Facebook encourages users to add a profile picture.
- dasmoth 10y agoPlease don't -- there's more than enough of that kind of nagging on todays web as it is.
- kabouseng 10y agoNo licence means copyright applies I believe. So maybe if there is no licence then a generic copyright applies, contact the author message would suffice.
- reidrac 10y agoI don't think they should do that, for different reasons. For example, lots of projects have more than one license, but GitHub seems to list only one. Incorrect information is worse than no information. Besides current implementation only seems to pay attention to most popular licenses (?)... arguably CERN Open Hardware Licence is not amongst the most popular, but for some reason I was expecting GH to detect that one ;) So again: incomplete information. Perhaps asking the repo owner to manually specify the licence could be an option, but if the repo owner cares about licences, I'm sure that information is available already.