4 ms·
I really like your bonus idea. But it's surprising that after you explain how complex licensing scenarios can be you still recommend to force a very inflexible
by pjtr 12y ago
I really like your bonus idea. But it's surprising that after you explain how complex licensing scenarios can be you still recommend to force a very inflexible single-license-per-repository model. What about dual licensing? Differently licensed code in the same repository? (e.g. for vendored third party code etc.)
- kijin 12y agoDual licensing is fine, I simply omitted it from my suggestion because it didn't occur to me at the time. As for third-party code included in a repo, I don't think their licenses should be shown prominently on any listing. It's the job of the project maintainer to ensure that all of the licenses for third-party libraries are compatible with the main license(s) for the project, and if possible, enumerate them somewhere in the tree. Most third-party libraries probably have their own GitHub repos anyway.