Which is odd because a lot of people use it as a license even though the CC website specifically says to not do that.
Oops, I just copied and pasted from a different nostr repo. Can you recommend some resources to looking at licenses?
No worries my man. MIT is probably what you'd want here? @Vitor Pamplona uses that for Amethyst. I am not a license expert at all though. https://github.com/vitorpamplona/amethyst/blob/main/LICENSE
Wen expert?
I'll let you tackle that task.
PhD incoming
Dr. Warrior, PhD
As user I prefer MIT too. But nostr:nprofile1qqspwut66nfqu2jztndq5gv4vf9q5jnncnmfwhckk9vnljrl53hj6kqppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvh8w6tw9uq32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7tc0rh42p have a look at https://choosealicense.com/ what fits your preference as developer.
But if it’s not MIT I will mock you.
It is now 🤙
MIT is the king of code decentralization.
You can look at a lot of them here: https://opensource.org/licenses/ MIT is a “do whatever you want with my work” license. Others have various levels of restrictions, such as limiting someone from being able to keep their changes private (like GPL)
Hopefully he will consider a license change. Considering the choice of no derivatives on CC it seems his goal is “source available” not “open source.” Far be it from me to throw shade, but I think the advice to not use CC is solid.
He did. It's MIT now
It seems the license will be changed nostr:nevent1qqsy8yzmjddfn05alkaa0h44yu36urvzsua36jly247aag5jdn7xjtqppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvh8w6tw9uq32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7tcpz4mhxue69uhhxamfwdejumn0wd68ytnvvvhsz9mhwden5te0wfjkccte9ehx7um5wghxyctwvshszxnhwden5te0wpuhyctdd9jzuenfv96x5ctx9e3k7mf0qyg8wumn8ghj7m3wda4nqtn0wfnj7qgewaehxw309aehgct8d9hxwtnwdaehgure9ekx7mp0qy08wumn8ghj7mn0wd68yttsw43zuam9d3kx7unyv4ezumn9wshszynhwden5te0wp6hyurvv4cxzeewv4esk8376v