emilk
License
If the idea is to take this template, make modifications, and then build on that, shouldn't it have a license?
I see your point, but if they authors want to give full control to the person using the code to choose their own licence which licence should they use to achieve that?
Also is there an agreed way to licence this code and not "dirty" the template with a licence file?
Or maybe it should be licensed under Apache 2 and MIT and add a step to the getting started to update / remove the copyright as appropriate.
@arjunsatarkar by any chance do you know?
If the idea is literally no conditions then CC0, I guess? It could be MIT and just require attribution.
Yeah, there's no requirement that it has to be in a separate file - the README should work fine.
Legally, if there is no license, then by default "all rights are reserved". Just because something is published, it does not mean it can be freely used. For private hobby things this might not matter much, but for work-related usage this is very much a serious concern. But uploading something to the internet it's not automatically "public domain", and one can also not actually put something into the public domain actively in some countries.
That's why, to make this template legally "safe for work", I agree that CC0 or something similar, like e.g. Unlicense should be added to this repository (in case it is intended to be used as-if it was public domain) or mentioned in the README as the condition for use.
Yeah I see your point. Makes sense but they seem to have very low bandwidth and haven't been able to get to this. Worst case you should be able to look at this like a pattern and just do your own thing if it's for a work project. There isn't anything intrinsically necessary to copy from here.
