specify license more clearly and use proper license headers
cgoldberg opened this issue · comments
Hi.
I'm looking at your project and it doesn't specify which license you are using. From a glimpse of the LICENSE file, i think it's a BSD-like license? Making this very clear is important to gain contributors and users.
You should use a standard license (GPL, BSD, MIT, etc), specify that in the license file according to their procedure, and also mention it in each source file header. Each source file header should also include copyright info along with license info.
Your project is cool and I'd like to contribute. Let me know if you'd accept a pull request with the licensing/copyrights fixes... and I can go ahead and do it.
regards,
-Corey
@cgoldberg - thanks for the feedback. Please do feel free to open a pull request with such fixes!
The LICENSE should indeed be a BSD license. I started off with the three clauses but removed the third because there is no 'organization'. Is there a version of the third clause for when there is no organisation?
Just saw the text is not wrapper in the LICENSE - I usually do wrap it, but not sure what happened there. Feel free to wrap.
@cgoldberg - just to check, are you still planning on submitting a couple of pull requests? If not, then I can try tidying this up.
The original issue should be fixed in 5ca4bae.