Why is there no license on the repo? about l4t-megascript

[theofficialgman]

cobalt added a license near the projects beginning when only him and someone he knew and had permission to make changes.

the project has been unlicensed ever since and all our contributors know this. however this does not mean the code isn't open source. github's TOS allows all code plublished as public to be forked and viewed.

only cobalt and myself have made any significant contributions to the code (99% of the existing lines have been written by us) so only we need to decide on adding a licence if we add one.

I have asked him before about adding a license but he just didn't want to make a decision.

I would also argue that you can't really license install scripts anyway since they almost always come directly from other projects documentation with no licensing applied. the functions, GUI scipt, and helper scripts maybe and I (and cobalt) have written those.

[theofficialgman]

From what I've seen of the install scripts at least, almost all are modified enough in a way that isn't a direct copy of someone's documentation and thus could benefit form a license.

no not really. most scripts are a direct copy with a bit of error checking sprinkled in. hardly anything worth or able to be licensed

IANAL but to my knowledge, even if there is a 1% that wrote code, those people still need to give consent (unless the whole thing was rewritten). Better be safe than sorry with legal stuff.

thats no big deal. only a maximum of maybe 100 lines of bash scripting is written by other contributors. I can rewrite those in an evening and already plan to do so for some scripts anyway.

https://github.com/cobalt2727/L4T-Megascript/blob/master/scripts/games_and_emulators/SRB2.sh
https://github.com/cobalt2727/L4T-Megascript/blob/master/scripts/games_and_emulators/SRB2Kart.sh
https://github.com/cobalt2727/L4T-Megascript/blob/master/scripts/games_and_emulators/ST2.sh
https://github.com/cobalt2727/L4T-Megascript/blob/master/scripts/extras/antimicrox.sh

also we have contact with our contributors and there are not that many. it sholdn't be hard to get them to agree to a license if we decide on one.

[Miepee]

however this does not mean the code isn't open source. github's TOS allows all code plublished as public to be forked and viewed.

Open source is not the same as source available. The megascripts currently fit the definitions for the latter, but not the first.

(99% of the existing lines have been written by us) so only we need to decide

IANAL but to my knowledge, even if there is a 1% that wrote code, those people still need to give consent (unless the whole thing was rewritten). Better be safe than sorry with legal stuff.

I would also argue that you can't really license install scripts anyway

From what I've seen of the install scripts at least, almost all are modified enough in a way that isn't a direct copy of someone's documentation and thus could benefit form a license. Although it is true that simple stuff like cmake callings are a bit weird to license.

[cobalt2727]

well this aged poorly