Add NOTICE, and fix CC BY-SA 4.0 ambiguity#115
Conversation
thaJeztah
commented
May 15, 2026
- relates to LICENSE and LICENSE.doc causes go-license-detector to see only evidence of CC-BY-SA-4.0 #68 (comment)
- Reset the Apache-2 License to be a pristine copy
- Add a NOTICE to mention copyright and licensing
- Update the README which referred to the docs license without "ShareAlike", but the license is CC BY-SA 4.0.
- Reset the Apache-2 License to be a pristine copy - Add a NOTICE to mention copyright and licensing - Update the README which referred to the docs license without "ShareAlike", but the license is CC BY-SA 4.0. Signed-off-by: Sebastiaan van Stijn <github@gone.nl>
| All rights reserved, except as follows. | ||
| Code is released under the [Apache 2.0 license](LICENSE). | ||
| This `README.md` file and the [`CONTRIBUTING.md`](CONTRIBUTING.md) file are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License under the terms and conditions set forth in the file [`LICENSE.docs`](LICENSE.docs). | ||
| This `README.md` file and the [`CONTRIBUTING.md`](CONTRIBUTING.md) file are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License under the terms and conditions set forth in the file [`LICENSE.docs`](LICENSE.docs). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the tricky part because of the ambiguity that was there; the original test described it without ShareAlike, but then used CC BY-SA further on; fcf056d
This
README.mdfile and theCONTRIBUTING.mdfile are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License under the terms and conditions set forth in the fileLICENSE.docs. You may obtain a duplicate copy of the same license, titled CC BY-SA 4.0, at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/.
Given that the license itself is ShareAlike and referred to as CC BY-SA (as well as linked), I guess that's the most correct way to fix the ambiguity.
They're quite different though in some ways;
- CC BY-SA requires modified versions to keep using the same license (“share alike”).
- Plain CC BY only requires attribution and allows relicensing derivatives under different terms.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Honestly, I wonder if it's worth the complexity to have these two files under a separate license, and if it would make more sense to just put them under the Apache-2 license.