License

[ngerakines]

I propose the following license apply to the lexicon repository as well as any additional code or schema repositories created under this organization

# License

The MIT License

Copyright 2024 Lexicon Community

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Additionally, the pull request template will be updated to include the following:

# License and Assignment

- [ ] I assign all rights of this contribution to Lexicon Community as an open source contribution under the MIT license.

[rudyfraser]

LGTM

[tom-sherman]

Yup, sounds good

[bmann]

I had an out of band discussion with Nick about MIT/Apache dual licensing, because it's something that has become common in my circles (and from the bsky team). I think this is in part about dealing with different companies that have standard rules about either. Apache historically has been listed as clear statements re: patents. I looked it up again, and found this article on MIT and patents.

Also, are these specifications? Or code? Easier all around, this is code, and classic open source code re-use :) You can make the apps that read/write Lexicons under whatever license you want.

Long winded: LGTM, simple commit checkbox is good!

[steveklabnik]

I came here to say basically this.

Also, are these specifications? Or code?

This is also a good point, one could argue that this is more of a spec than code, in which case, using a license around that is possibly more appropriate. For example, here's the W3C's license: https://www.w3.org/copyright/document-license-2023/ (Not that we'd want to use that directly, just like, saying.)

[ngerakines]

Fair point. I'm lapping both configuration and code into "code" here. I think the line is too blurry otherwise and I don't want people to nitpick field names and intention to try to split hairs between documentation (markdown files), schema files, generated source code, etc.

The intention and use cases that I'm expecting include:

1. lexicon project files will be copied or included directly in other repositories or projects
2. lexicon project files will be used directly in other software as data files or indirectly as code generation inputs