License

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Anyone have a favorite license they'd like this work to be under? Nat's original is Public Domain.

Tkiesel19:45, 24 May 2012

Nothing wrong with public domain. =) I've been using zlib, and I also like MIT. A common one on the wiki (which I also once used) is RWPCL. I actually posted some thoughts on licenses a while back here: Archived_talk:User:Voidious_20110909#Choice_of_license. It's definitely up to personal preference.

Voidious17:32, 25 May 2012

zlib, MIT and Creative Commons Attribution all look nice to me as "credit where credit is due" permissive licenses.

The smoother method I'm hoping to use is from a talk page here on RoboWiki. RoboWiki:Copyrights is blank, so I'm not sure how to proceed with that code.

Should have this code in a testable state, hopefully with a test painter bot to squash bugs this weekend or on Monday, depending on how life goes.

Tkiesel19:37, 25 May 2012
 

Anything without a license listed is probably free to use as if it's public domain. I think we stumbled on deciding on a license for wiki content because so much of it was added before any license was specified, so it seems wrong to try and retroactively add a license. Very good point that we should update RoboWiki:Copyrights, though, given how prominently it's displayed.

Voidious19:48, 25 May 2012
 

I've just capped off all of deBroglie's files, including the MovementPredictor with a zlib notice.

I added a clause to two files regarding not using the code in programming competitions without my consent. Those two files are a bit more uniquely "me" (or at least represent a lot more of me bashing my head against the wall) than the rest.

As of the next release, deBroglie will be a majority zlib bot. :)

Thanks for the food for thought!

Tkiesel05:31, 11 June 2012