We need a LICENSE.txt about promises-spec

[lsmith]

Hehe. I wonder what version 1 looked like.

I'm also a fan of the Crazy Go Nuts License. Similar in spirit, less profane :)

Any wide open license is good by me.

[briancavalier]

I like WTFPL. MIT has proven to be very good for cujo.js--both open source projects and commercial entities seem to be very comfortable with it. I guess I'd vote for MIT.

Will promise implementors care? How/when does a license come into play for a spec like this?

[domenic]

I think it just clarifies that people can quote or redistribute the spec as desired; otherwise it's copyrighted and we could sue anyone for reproducing it anywhere.

[domenic]

I wonder if a creative-commons license might be more appropriate for something that's not software/code.

[briancavalier]

Ah, yes, good thought about CC. It seems like either Attribution or Attribution-ShareAlike would be appropriate. CommonJS appears to use MIT, and Wikipedia uses CC Attribution-ShareAlike.

[briancavalier]

As another data point, proposals on the ecmascript wiki (e.g. modules) are CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike.

[juandopazo]

+1 to CC

[briancavalier]

I'm +1 on CC as well, although it's not clear to me which variant is best. Based on wikipedia and ecmascript wiki, it seems like one of the ShareAlike variants would be a good choice. Anyone have any thoughts on the NonCommercial variant? Any reason not to pick that one? Hard to imagine someone trying to make money on a derivative of this spec, but who knows.

[domenic]

I'm in favor of maximizing permissiveness. Thus either CC0 or CC BY 3.0 would be my preference.

[lsmith]

maximizing permissiveness +1

[briancavalier]

Interesting, I didn't even know CC0 existed. It sounds like it's effectively public domain, but with provisions to make it work in more legal climates. I'm ok with it.

[briancavalier]

Unless there are any objections, it seems like we can move forward with CC0. The process at the cc website requires a small bit of info, namely "name", which is supposed to be the name of the entity(ies) who have the right to waive the copyright, and url. For name, would it be appropriate to list the names of the primary participants here (I've been saying that's me, @domenic, @kriskowal, @lsmith, and @wycats), or is it more appropriate to use the organization name "Promises/A+"? I'm fine with whatever is most appropriate, and don't feel any need to have my name listed explicitly.

If we get that worked out, we can generate a CC0 badge.

[wycats]

Sounds fine to me!

-- Yehuda Katz
(ph) 718.877.1325
On Nov 6, 2012 12:00 PM, "Brian Cavalier" [email protected] wrote:

Unless there are any objections, it seems like we can move forward with
CC0. The process at the cc website requires a small bit of info, namely
"name", which is supposed to be the name of the entity(ies) who have the
right to waive the copyright, and url. For name, would it be appropriate to
list the names of the primary participants here (I've been saying that's
me, @domenic https://github.com/domenic, @kriskowalhttps://github.com/kriskowal,
@lsmith https://github.com/lsmith, and @wycatshttps://github.com/wycats),
or is it more appropriate to use the organization name "Promises/A+"? I'm
fine with whatever is most appropriate, and don't feel any need to have my
name listed explicitly.

If we get that worked out, we can generate a CC0 badge.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/19#issuecomment-10129601.

[kriskowal]

On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Yehuda Katz [email protected] wrote:

Sounds fine to me!

Also no objections.

[briancavalier]

Thoughts on what's best as the "name" for CC0? Some options:

1. The org name: "Promises/A+" or some variation "Promises/A+ Organization", etc.
2. Our names in a comma-separated list
3. Other options?

Here's an example of what the CC0 generator spits out. It is possible to omit the "name", and CC0 will generate text that includes the URL instead.

Thoughts?

[domenic]

I was thinking "the Promises/A+ authors" but "the Promises/A+ organization" seems pretty good too. I like the URL option as well, but not sure if it'll fly.

I guess the most important thing is to demonstrate intent so nobody says "oh we can't use it because the license is messed up," not necessarily to create something legally foolproof.