4 ms·

Dear GitHub: please consider providing a nudge for the owner to include a license when creating a public repo. Otherwise the fork button becomes kind of weird,

• do_not_redeem 2y ago
  1. Off topic 2. GitHub already does this. https://i.imgur.com/yAfwWGs.png https://i.imgur.com/yAfwWGs.png
  • pmontra 2y ago
    Probably the default should not be None. There should be a mandatory license, either the Unlicense https://unlicense.org/ https://unlicense.org/ or something even simpler ("this is public domain".)
    • MoreMoore 2y ago
      To expand on this a bit, in many places a software project without a license means that all rights are reserved by the author and that nobody else has any legal right to use it in any way. I'm not sure if unlicense/public domain would be a better default though. At the very least, that Github prompt should explicitly state with a warning what it means when you select "None" as the license. I think most people don't realize or know what it means for others who want to look at or use the project.
    • numpad0 2y ago
      Wasn't it MIT or something permissive long time ago? I felt prevalence of "it's marked as ___ but actually proprietary" might have influenced that
• sunaookami 2y ago
  >Otherwise the fork button becomes kind of weird Then the GitHub ToS applies: https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... >By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories