"As of 2015, MIT was the most popular software license on GitHub, ahead of any GPL variant" WHAT THE FUCK

@velartrill
As I'm part of the problem here maybe I can provide some insight.

I tried going through the instructions on the GNU website on how to correctly license your project under GPL. They are quite complicated and I couldn't really tell what data do I need to put where - do I need these silly headers in all files, just one or none is fine? Do I need a separate file with a contributors list? Which parts of the license should I modify by adding the name of the project, my name or whatever else? How do I indicate that the license doesn't encompass some of the that have their own licenses? Does any of this impact the legality?

Maybe the answer is nothing above really matters, and I should've just slapped the license on and left it at that. But the manual scared me of, and I just slapped MIT on, because I knew this was at least common practice. For the record I tried this twice.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but I'd say the instructions not being clear enough are at least part of the problem. :/

@timorl yeah that's fair. personally i just announce "THIS SOFTWARE IS AGPL MOTHERFUCKERS" somewhere in the readme or website and leave it at that. sometimes i throw in a copy of the agpl as a LICENSE file if the project is important enough. i have no idea how legally efficacious that actually is tho, i should look into that
Sign in to participate in the conversation
CleverLibre Social

CleverLibre Social is an inclusive social instance for open discussion, learning, and community.
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.