-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 60
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Create LICENSE #37
Create LICENSE #37
Conversation
LICENSE
Outdated
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ | |||
MIT License | |||
|
|||
Copyright (c) 2018 TC39 members |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@codehag who should have the licence for that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not sure, @ljharb @littledan what do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
that's a good question; generally the license needs to come from the contributors, so really i think it'd just be "contributors", and then whoever shows up in the commit log would be included?
Alternatively, it could probably be "ecma and TC39 members". It might be good to get a legal perspective.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@xtuc would you be able to make this update sometime in the next day? would be great to have it!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What about "TC39 members and other contributors"? I doesn't really involves ecma?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ecma owns anything TC39 might lay claim to; legally the difference may matter, but ofc IANAL
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
sounds good
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm confused, what should I write?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Isn't "TC39 members" a bit odd if Ecma has 'members' and TC39 has 'delegates' though?
FWIW, it looks like test262 has a BSD license to Ecma International
and an open discussion in which a concern about it has been escalated to Ecma. Perhaps this should be escalated too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For some formality, how about "Ecma's TC39 Royalty Free Task Group"?
https://www.ecma-international.org/memento/TC39-RF-TG.htm
It can't go wrong this way.
thanks! |
How about we use Ecma's software license, as test262 does? http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/TC39%20experimental%20policy.htm |
That link redirects rather quickly to another page. I am not too sure where to find the text you are referring to... |
Yeah, this should be improved... I will contact the Ecma Secretariat for next steps. |
Here's a better link--my mistake! https://www.ecma-international.org/memento/Policies/Ecma_Policy_on_Submission_Inclusion_and_Licensing_of_Software.htm |
#35