Re: [Repo-criteria-discuss] What's needed to publish the evaluations (aka the longest email ever {aka two specific tasks})}

[Aaron Wolf]

On 04/12/2016 07:56 PM, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 13:24:29 -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>>> choosealicense.com. However, the default is still 'none'.
>>>
>>
>> Great! Having no license default isn't the GNU preference, but it's not
>> aggressive or anything.
> 
> The lack of a license means that the software is proprietary, so that's
> worse than them choosing another free software license.
> 
> So "none" is really bad.
> 

I wasn't saying that no license is okay. I just think that a repository
not specifying a default license doesn't amount to advocating for no
license. Whereas specifying GPLv2 over GPLv3 is actively telling people
to choose v2 over v3. No-license as default is the same effectively as a
dropdown that has no starting selection. GitHub having a no-license
default is not the same topic as the issue of software having no license.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature