Hacker News Reader

Honestly, I browsed around for less then ten minutes, before deciding on Creative Commons for the code -- and I did so only because I previously saw source-code under various Creative Commons licenses. I did not know that it wasn't recommended; thanks for letting me know. I'll be sure to study the issue more thoroughly and re-license the code.

View on HN

Open Source Licenses[1] is a good place to "shop" for licenses, though you might find the "by name" view a bit overwhelming. Maybe start with from the "Licenses that are popular and widely used or with strong communities" section on the "by category"[2] page.

[1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html

[2] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category

Thank you.

Why not release it under the MIT license?

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

As soon as I get a few free minutes, I promise I'll look over licenses more carefully and re-release the code.

In case anyone is interested in using the source code right this second, just come back to the site tomorrow and you'll find the new license explicitly stated.

If you have any cool ideas for what to do with the code, let me know -- I like hearing cool ideas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com