This project is read-only.

License

Coordinator
Sep 14, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Currently we are using the Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL).  This is mainly for its simplicity and lack of requiring a single entity to be a copyright holder.  If anyone would like to discuss changing this license please add to this discussion.

Coordinator
Nov 9, 2012 at 4:53 PM

I'm thinking about changing the license to the MIT License it seems a little shorter and very straight forward.  Does anyone care one way or the other?

 

Example:

Copyright (c) (2012) (RSSUG)

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.

Coordinator
Sep 1, 2013 at 6:12 PM
Sticking with the Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL) at this point.