What is the license which applies to this repository?

[ifraixedes]

Hi @Phildo

Awesome job, however I cannot find in what license is applied to this repository. If there's one can you make it more visible in README or adding add LICENSE file? otherwise could you define one?

It'll help to people to know that they can do with you work.

Thanks.

[Phildo]

That is a good question... Unfortunately, I haven't yet decided on a license (when I do, I'll put it both in the README and a LICENSE file). I'm just not super experienced with them, so need to take a bit to do some research.

Some things I have in mind-

• I don't care to make money off it
• I want people to be able to use it for free
• I want to keep the source available
• I want to encourage contributions to the source
• I want people to have no problems making money off a byproduct of this (as in, nobody should feel any reason not to use pixQL on images for a for-profit project)
• I'm not yet sure how I feel about people using the source code itself to make money (ie, fork, add a feature, and sell. or merge into photoshop. or something like that.)

Any tips or pointing me in the right direction would be appreciated!

[ifraixedes]

I'm not really an expert on the scope.

If you keep this issue open, people can help, just make a comment in the README and point to this issue to try to warn people.

On the other hand, I made my 5 cents

• _I don't care to make money off it_: The most of open source license don't restrict that, however the restriction is if the code which uses it must be open or it isn't needed.
• _I want people to be able to use it for free_: The same answer than before.
• _I want to keep the source available_: Most of the open source license keep the source available when no modifications and having to give the credits to the author, however some of them can allows to take it and used, modified and not needed to release the source of the modifications however they have to credit the author.
• _I want to encourage contributions to the source_: It's tricky, permissive OS license don't force to release the modifications as open source and more restricted one as GPL force to do it, otherwise they can not be taken as a source (it's a little bit more complicate but roughly is that); nonetheless sometimes permissive ones are in better eyes to make contributions because allow to the people to release the modifications of the library at the same time to keep private the base code source that link to it, which probably is the core of their business and it's tricky to open it for competition reasons or other business constraints.
• _I want people to have no problems making money off a byproduct of this (as in, nobody should feel any reason not to use pixQL on images for a for-profit project)_: Again making money isn't usually the restriction of the Open Source licenses, they are more related with the source code.
• _I'm not yet sure how I feel about people using the source code itself to make money (ie, fork, add a feature, and sell. or merge into photoshop. or something like that.)_: I think that it's your own decision, you're the author and your choice must be respected by anyone else.

My suggestion is, if you aren't sure, take your time, but add a notice in the README, it will help to people to understand the status and you will probably get feedback and advise.

[georgy7]

Maybe mixed license CDDL/GPL or another? Both the licenses encourage contributions to the source. CDDL allows to make money off it by making closed source products, but it's incompatible with GPL. That's why Netbeans has dual licensing with GPL (with a few exceptions).