Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

LICENSE: switch to CC-BY-3.0 #637 #839

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: gh-pages
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

vapier
Copy link
Member

@vapier vapier commented Jul 9, 2024

We've always said the style guides are licensed under CC-By 3.0 in our README file. We use other licenses for code snippets, and list those in the respective file headers, but the guides are the dominant source in this repo, so list that in the LICENSE file.

Fixes #637.

We've always said the style guides are licensed under CC-By 3.0 in
our README file.  We use other licenses for code snippets, and list
those in the respective file headers, but the guides are the dominant
source in this repo, so list that in the LICENSE file.

Fixes google#637.
@vapier vapier requested a review from shicks July 9, 2024 23:21
@vapier
Copy link
Member Author

vapier commented Jul 9, 2024

@dseomn @gpshead FYI

@gpshead
Copy link
Contributor

gpshead commented Jul 9, 2024

There's no need to ask me about anything in this repo anymore. go/epitaphs/gps
(Fixing the license to be what makes sense for documentation makes sense to me but I have no say in the matter anymore).

@vapier
Copy link
Member Author

vapier commented Jul 9, 2024

sorry bud, missed that. i'll stop spamming you :).

@dseomn
Copy link
Member

dseomn commented Jul 11, 2024

Personally, I'd really like some way to keep using the pylintrc in other projects (because that's the point of it, right?), but I have no stake in this decision as part of my job.

@vapier
Copy link
Member Author

vapier commented Jul 12, 2024

nothing is stopping you from using the file elsewhere. it's arguable whether one can copyright config files like this. if one thinks so, based on the comments written, not the key=value parts, then the license would be that of pylint since that's where all the comments are coming from. and pylint is GPL-2, not Apache-2.0.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

License clarification
3 participants