@yeehi: “There is no software licence for solid included with the software. On the projects home page it states that solid is “Open Source”. A Free licence document, such as the AGPL, should be included for those who clone/download the software. It should be readily apparent to visitors of the page, with an obvious file name, like licence.txt.”
@RubenVerborgh: "Yes there is, in individual software repositories such as https://github.com/solid/node-solid-server/blob/master/LICENSE This repository is not a software repository, that’s why it does not have a license.
@yeehi: " Thanks for your work on devloping Solid, @RubenVerborgh !Could a text file with the MIT licence be included in this github? Others might spend time looking for licencing statement, too. A Free licence is clearly a great asset and I am sure a matter of pride."
@megoth: " I guess we could add a note pointing out that license is on each repo?"
@RubenVerborgh: “Let’s add a note, not all of Solid might have the same license.”
@kjetilk: “Also, we should probably have a license on the documentation too, or is all that intended to be “All rights reserved”?”
@melvincarvalho: “or some kind of creative commons license?”
@csarven:" +1 to CC BYEdited : if CC BY (or something more restrictive), it needs to be associated with legal entities eg. MIT, list of contributors. CC 0 would be a good alternative to getting around this.If “All rights reserved”, reserved to who? Which legal entity? Many people have contributed to the documentation over the years in different ways eg. through github, gitter, as well as offline. I suggest that the rights/license on the documentation acknowledges and reflects that to some extent. CC0 may be a safe way of muddling through that mess. "
@RubenVerborgh: It seems that @kjetilk’s point was more that, given the lack of a license now, this is what should be assumed. In any case, I think it is up to @timbl as a project owner to decide on this, or at least weigh in.
@kjetilk: Indeed, the default legal fallback is quite unclear, so it seems like we need to have this explicit.
@akuckartz: " The rights then are very limited."
@kjetilk:“Yup, but also unclear in the sense that it has many contributors who might have been unaware of the conditions.”