Tweeted twitter.com/StackProgrammer/status/732882626722320385
2 added 3 characters in body
source | link

Could somebody please resolve a particular licensing confusion for me? I'm always really puzzled by how software licensing works.

I want for everyone to be able to use my software with minimal, if any, restrictions and no warranty. So I just use a permissive license (MIT License was my choice) and write something like

This project, including all of the files and their contents, is licensed under the terms of MIT License
See LICENSE.txt for details.

This project, including all of the files and their contents, is licensed under the terms of MIT License

See LICENSE.txt for details.

in the project's README.

I am confused about how this works for project's "artifacts" (auxiliary files; files, that are actually not source files). I want the same licensing terms to apply to every single file of my project, including

  • build system/documentation files (Makefiles, CMakeLists.txt, Doxyfile, etc.; I'm actually almost certain the clause above applies to those files, doesn't it?),
  • HTML/JavaScript/CSS/XML/etc. files (are those even licensed? I'm not sure. I also want people to examine them, derive their own versions, etc.)
  • images and other binary assets (I want people to be able to use them in presentations and such).

I've seen people doing sort of a dual-licensing for their projects. For example, source files are licensed under the MIT License, and images are licensed under one of the Creative Commons licenses. Why would they do that, isn't MIT License sufficient? I mean, the text of the license only discusses "the software". I'm not sure if e.g. images are included as a part of "the software", especially if the images are a product of the software (like if I want to provide examples of what sort of imagery the software is able to produce). Or are they?

And if the project doesn't actually contain any source code? What if it's only a set of (from my perspective, useful) configuration files, which can, if not used properly, result in another piece of software behaving incorrectly and messing up user's data?

I really want to come up with a universal wording to include in every single one of my projects and just be done with it. Also, if a useful suggestion comes up and I decide to change my project's licensing terms, can I just do it if I'm the only contributor? Considering the project was "licensed" under the MIT License.

I feel autistic by asking this, since none of my projects will ever get anybody actually interested, but I always feel like I need to scratch my brain when I think about this, so I would be really glad if somebody could clear this up for me.

Could somebody please resolve a particular licensing confusion for me? I'm always really puzzled by how software licensing works.

I want for everyone to be able to use my software with minimal, if any, restrictions and no warranty. So I just use a permissive license (MIT License was my choice) and write something like

This project, including all of the files and their contents, is licensed under the terms of MIT License
See LICENSE.txt for details.

in the project's README.

I am confused about how this works for project's "artifacts" (auxiliary files; files, that are actually not source files). I want the same licensing terms to apply to every single file of my project, including

  • build system/documentation files (Makefiles, CMakeLists.txt, Doxyfile, etc.; I'm actually almost certain the clause above applies to those files, doesn't it?),
  • HTML/JavaScript/CSS/XML/etc. files (are those even licensed? I'm not sure. I also want people to examine them, derive their own versions, etc.)
  • images and other binary assets (I want people to be able to use them in presentations and such).

I've seen people doing sort of a dual-licensing for their projects. For example, source files are licensed under the MIT License, and images are licensed under one of the Creative Commons licenses. Why would they do that, isn't MIT License sufficient? I mean, the text of the license only discusses "the software". I'm not sure if e.g. images are included as a part of "the software", especially if the images are a product of the software (like if I want to provide examples of what sort of imagery the software is able to produce). Or are they?

And if the project doesn't actually contain any source code? What if it's only a set of (from my perspective, useful) configuration files, which can, if not used properly, result in another piece of software behaving incorrectly and messing up user's data?

I really want to come up with a universal wording to include in every single one of my projects and just be done with it. Also, if a useful suggestion comes up and I decide to change my project's licensing terms, can I just do it if I'm the only contributor? Considering the project was "licensed" under the MIT License.

I feel autistic by asking this, since none of my projects will ever get anybody actually interested, but I always feel like I need to scratch my brain when I think about this, so I would be really glad if somebody could clear this up for me.

Could somebody please resolve a particular licensing confusion for me? I'm always really puzzled by how software licensing works.

I want for everyone to be able to use my software with minimal, if any, restrictions and no warranty. So I just use a permissive license (MIT License was my choice) and write something like

This project, including all of the files and their contents, is licensed under the terms of MIT License

See LICENSE.txt for details.

in the project's README.

I am confused about how this works for project's "artifacts" (auxiliary files; files, that are actually not source files). I want the same licensing terms to apply to every single file of my project, including

  • build system/documentation files (Makefiles, CMakeLists.txt, Doxyfile, etc.; I'm actually almost certain the clause above applies to those files, doesn't it?),
  • HTML/JavaScript/CSS/XML/etc. files (are those even licensed? I'm not sure. I also want people to examine them, derive their own versions, etc.)
  • images and other binary assets (I want people to be able to use them in presentations and such).

I've seen people doing sort of a dual-licensing for their projects. For example, source files are licensed under the MIT License, and images are licensed under one of the Creative Commons licenses. Why would they do that, isn't MIT License sufficient? I mean, the text of the license only discusses "the software". I'm not sure if e.g. images are included as a part of "the software", especially if the images are a product of the software (like if I want to provide examples of what sort of imagery the software is able to produce). Or are they?

And if the project doesn't actually contain any source code? What if it's only a set of (from my perspective, useful) configuration files, which can, if not used properly, result in another piece of software behaving incorrectly and messing up user's data?

I really want to come up with a universal wording to include in every single one of my projects and just be done with it. Also, if a useful suggestion comes up and I decide to change my project's licensing terms, can I just do it if I'm the only contributor? Considering the project was "licensed" under the MIT License.

I feel autistic by asking this, since none of my projects will ever get anybody actually interested, but I always feel like I need to scratch my brain when I think about this, so I would be really glad if somebody could clear this up for me.

1
source | link

MIT License vs. Creative Commons for images and other assets

Could somebody please resolve a particular licensing confusion for me? I'm always really puzzled by how software licensing works.

I want for everyone to be able to use my software with minimal, if any, restrictions and no warranty. So I just use a permissive license (MIT License was my choice) and write something like

This project, including all of the files and their contents, is licensed under the terms of MIT License
See LICENSE.txt for details.

in the project's README.

I am confused about how this works for project's "artifacts" (auxiliary files; files, that are actually not source files). I want the same licensing terms to apply to every single file of my project, including

  • build system/documentation files (Makefiles, CMakeLists.txt, Doxyfile, etc.; I'm actually almost certain the clause above applies to those files, doesn't it?),
  • HTML/JavaScript/CSS/XML/etc. files (are those even licensed? I'm not sure. I also want people to examine them, derive their own versions, etc.)
  • images and other binary assets (I want people to be able to use them in presentations and such).

I've seen people doing sort of a dual-licensing for their projects. For example, source files are licensed under the MIT License, and images are licensed under one of the Creative Commons licenses. Why would they do that, isn't MIT License sufficient? I mean, the text of the license only discusses "the software". I'm not sure if e.g. images are included as a part of "the software", especially if the images are a product of the software (like if I want to provide examples of what sort of imagery the software is able to produce). Or are they?

And if the project doesn't actually contain any source code? What if it's only a set of (from my perspective, useful) configuration files, which can, if not used properly, result in another piece of software behaving incorrectly and messing up user's data?

I really want to come up with a universal wording to include in every single one of my projects and just be done with it. Also, if a useful suggestion comes up and I decide to change my project's licensing terms, can I just do it if I'm the only contributor? Considering the project was "licensed" under the MIT License.

I feel autistic by asking this, since none of my projects will ever get anybody actually interested, but I always feel like I need to scratch my brain when I think about this, so I would be really glad if somebody could clear this up for me.