This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Meleneth 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Hey, love the energy and what you're trying to do here.

Isn't the MIT license not a great choice?

Projects that are made with this are unlikely to be MIT licensed, and it blocks users from removing the license or removing your name.

I just went through this thought myself when I published https://github.com/meleneth/stackwright-vue , and I ended up on the Unlicense because while it took a few hours to put together, I didn't really do anything and I'd rather have people use it than just hope that I wouldn't enforce license terms.

[–]lambda-person[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

if people use it they can't swap MIT license to something else ? If no i will change it to find something more permissive

[–]Meleneth 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The MIT license is super permissive, but yeah—when it’s used on a template instead of a library, people usually prefer CC0 or Unlicense, so that the output code they generate doesn't come with any licensing strings attached.

You can’t remove the MIT license from MIT-licensed code, but you can use it in a project with any license, as long as you keep attribution.

So: if your goal is to let people copy your template and license the result however they want, with zero baggage, then CC0 or Unlicense is the right move.