Ok, this feels like a mess we should clean up:

Default policy for code is easy, MIT and Apache-2 dual license, as stated in: https://protocol.ai/blog/announcing-the-permissive-license-stack/
- buuut https://github.com/ipfs/community/blob/master/LICENSING_POLICY.md only lists MIT, should be updated.
Non-code, sadly, is all over the place:
- https://github.com/ipfs/community/blob/master/LICENSING_POLICY.md suggests using CC BY 4.0 (no share-alike!) for "documentation" and "non-code"
  - but the docs.ipfs.io uses CC-BY-SA 4.0
  - Multiformats README uses CC-BY-SA 3.0
  - libp2p/specs have no license specified (??!) at all
  - 👉 When I was writing Gateway specifications I went with CC0, and that was used as a template, and we now have a bunch of specifications at https://specs.ipfs.tech under that.

@darobin I remember you mentioned other projects switching away from CC0 due to some edge case problems, do you remember the details? If we need to switch to CC-BY should it include SA, or can we relax it?

If we want to switch to something else, we should do it sooner than later + update https://github.com/ipfs/community/blob/master/LICENSING_POLICY.md to reflect that.

IPFS Specifications Licensing #137

Description

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions