Skip to content
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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jun 29, 2018
Merged

Create LICENSE #37

merged 2 commits into from
Jun 29, 2018

Conversation

xtuc
Copy link
Member

@xtuc xtuc commented May 29, 2018

#35

LICENSE Outdated
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
MIT License

Copyright (c) 2018 TC39 members
Copy link
Member Author

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?

Copy link
Collaborator

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?

Copy link
Member

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.

Copy link
Collaborator

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!

Copy link
Member Author

@xtuc xtuc Jun 2, 2018

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?

Copy link
Member

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

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

sounds good

Copy link
Member Author

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?

Copy link
Member

@rkirsling rkirsling Jun 3, 2018

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?

Copy link
Member

@leobalter leobalter Jun 28, 2018

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.

@codehag
Copy link
Collaborator

codehag commented Jun 29, 2018

thanks!

@codehag codehag merged commit 018d811 into master Jun 29, 2018
@xtuc xtuc deleted the add-license-1 branch June 29, 2018 11:14
@littledan
Copy link
Member

littledan commented Jul 1, 2018

How about we use Ecma's software license, as test262 does? http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/TC39%20experimental%20policy.htm

@codehag
Copy link
Collaborator

codehag commented Jul 2, 2018

That link redirects rather quickly to another page. I am not too sure where to find the text you are referring to...

@littledan
Copy link
Member

Yeah, this should be improved... I will contact the Ecma Secretariat for next steps.

@littledan
Copy link
Member

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants