5 ms·
Which kind of software license uses Deduce? The web says it's open source, but I couldn't find the license in the github repository.
by angelaguilera 2y ago
Which kind of software license uses Deduce? The web says it's open source, but I couldn't find the license in the github repository.
- fc417fc802 2y agoWow. It looks like they forgot to add one. I'm a bit surprised that GitHub permits creating new public repos without explicitly tagging a license file.
- falcor84 2y agoYou're surprised that GitHub allows people to host arbitrary repos?! Do you really prefer that GitHub would go "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't let you do that"?
- 3836293648 2y agoGitHub should allow arbitrary files in nhe repo, but all repo should require a licence tag
- dymk 2y agoWhy didn’t you include a copyright license on all your HN comments?
- 3836293648 2y agoBecause I agreed to a TOS that lets HN use my comments and reproduce them. On Github I don't just want to give that permission to github, but to everyone who clones my repo.
- immibis 2y agoI am not HN and I don't know if you think I should be allowed to quote your comments. If you included a copyright license, I'd know.
- roflmaostc 2y agoWhy? There is no legal requirement for a LICENSE https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-repositorys-settings-and-features/customizing-your-repository/licensing-a-repository#choosing-the-right-license https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-reposi... "You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work."
- fc417fc802 2y agoBecause that use case feels pretty far from the typical one for a public GitHub repo. Even when it was intended, having reliable metadata indicating that fact would be nice.
- falcor84 2y agoAbsolutely agreed, but there's a vast difference between "would be nice" and "should require". I for one strongly prefer to avoid putting up any additional barriers to sharing, even at the cost of the default value being all rights reserved (which is a sensible default).
- laGrenouille 2y agoI have read the quoted GitHub docs page before and also found it somewhat odd. Not because it shouldn't be allowed to post public code without a LICENSE (or with a restrictive one), but because GitHub has a "Fork" button on every repository. It's strange to me that GitHub has a one-click button that can violate the default terms of code uploaded to the site.
- immibis 2y agoGitHub's terms of use state that by uploading code to the site, you grant people permission to click "Fork".
- 3836293648 2y agoI'm not saying there is. I'm saying there should be. Posting code publicly on github without a licence is entirely pointless
- ameliaquining 2y agoThey've now added a LICENSE file. Seems they went with the Boost Software License (a fairly simple permissive license similar to the MIT License).