Licence missing

[mrh1997]

We would like to integrate the files but need a known licence to know if we are allowed or not.
Could you please add a licence file?

[Jedarc]

#12

[mrh1997]

My fault. I simply looked for a LICENSE file and didn't check the README, as I expect the README to contain intructions how to use the software.

But as it seems that I am not the only one, maybe adding a LICENCE file would still make sense?
I.e. creative commons (CC0)?

[Jedarc]

I agree with you, but unfortunately I haven't seen the author here lately. @B-Con

[SOesterreicher]

Hello B-Con,
Public Domain is in some countries problematic. Is there a possibility to assign a permissive license (e.g., MIT, BSD 3-clause) for Commercial use of the code.
A statement like the following would help:
"For Commercial use this code can be used under the MIT license."

Or do a re-licensing to a permissive license for the whole code. Than a license file would be nice.

Thanks in advance.
Siegfried Oesterreicher

[Flameeyes]

I'd like to add to the request for an explicit license — Public Domain is not really well recognized.

To keep with the spirit of your licensing, would you consider using Unlicense ? It's recognized by many organization, although it's not (yet?) OSI-approved.

For others to use this code, it would also be great to have SDPX headers as recommended by REUSE.software — that way there's a clear indication of copyright and license, and makes it easier to import into other projects.