What license is this under? :(
Unfortunately, there's not really a good, widely used license that does what you want, mostly because you run into problems pretty quickly based on derivative works with what you want. Let's say somebody merges your email client with a browser - can they call that by a different name? Can they sell that?
Anyhow, I'd suggest looking at looking at the Apache or BSD licenses (if you want the broadest use) or the GPL (if you want to ensure that modifications to the code must be distributed with any binaries made from the code). Licenses are a bit of a pain, but you can just pick one of the common ones and it'll really help adoption.
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ReleaseUnderGPLAnd...
http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_2_0
It's an interesting balance between freedom and giving back - may be more suited to what you want or may not.
Just say its "public domain" or MIT or Apache in a file called license.txt in the project and forget about it.
As far as I can tell this code is not currently open source. The only permissions given are: "now fork it, fix it and send pull requests". Which omits some important permissions, without which this cannot be called open source.
"Open-source software is software whose source code is published and made available to the public, enabling anyone to copy, modify and redistribute the source code without paying royalties or fees.[19]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
"Works are in the public domain if the intellectual property rights have expired,[1] if the intellectual property rights are forfeited,[2] or if they are not covered by intellectual property rights at all." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
He put it on GitHub, and he announced it was Open Source on HN.
"There's no license in this case and you cannot claim any intellectual property of the code. It would be the same if you uploaded the content on your own site without providing any license. According to the terms:
We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. However, by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories." http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4007674/whats-the-default...
So, I was wrong. He has copyright.
Of course there are some places that haven't signed the Berne Convention and don't have a copyright treaty through TRIPS or something similar.
(I think -- not a lawyer)
His statement to fork, fix, and ask for pulls perhaps gives some rights, but not usage or deployment ones.
In other word, if the author intends something else, they should say so.
EDIT: just noticed ThirdParty folder -- that changes the default to whatever is compatible with the licenses asserted in these libraries. I didn't check them.
- Facebook Toolkit is Microsoft Permissive License (Ms-PL) 1.1
- FluidKit says it's the "New BSD License" but gives the old 4-clause license.
- Google/GData is Apache 2.0
- Json.NET is MIT license
- Lucene.NET Apache 2.0
- MEF is the original Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL)
- LumiSoft.Net seems to be a custom license. I'm not sure what it is
- I'm not familar enough with Mono to know what license this code is under, likely LGPL or MIT
- PyBinding: MIT
- SharpZipLib is GPL with a linking exception
- Sqlite is Public Domain
- tweetsharp: MIT
- log4net: Apache 2.0
With HttpServer, Shell32, Unrar and mshtml unknown.
[Edit: formatting]
"Copyright and Content Ownership
We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. However, by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories.
GitHub does not pre-screen Content, but GitHub and its designee have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to refuse or remove any Content that is available via the Service.
You shall defend GitHub against any claim, demand, suit or proceeding made or brought against GitHub by a third party alleging that Your Content, or Your use of the Service in violation of this Agreement, infringes or misappropriates the intellectual property rights of a third party or violates applicable law, and shall indemnify GitHub for any damages finally awarded against, and for reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by, GitHub in connection with any such claim, demand, suit or proceeding; provided, that GitHub (a) promptly gives You written notice of the claim, demand, suit or proceeding; (b) gives You sole control of the defense and settlement of the claim, demand, suit or proceeding (provided that You may not settle any claim, demand, suit or proceeding unless the settlement unconditionally releases GitHub of all liability); and (c) provides to You all reasonable assistance, at Your expense.
The look and feel of the Service is copyright ©2011 GitHub Inc. All rights reserved. You may not duplicate, copy, or reuse any portion of the HTML/CSS, Javascript, or visual design elements or concepts without express written permission from GitHub."
Ok, but not use or deploy the results. Basically -- the author should add a license.
"Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic" and "Under the Convention, copyrights for creative works are automatically in force upon their creation without being asserted or declared."
You and the other downv^Wredditors read it without considering the context.