Do we need to choose a license for this repo?

[tonygermano]

Currently there is no license for the files in this repo. They don't necessarily need one. Thoughts?

[jonbartels]

Yes I think we do. Make it MPL.

The mantra that I remember from open source is that no-license is worse than a hostile license.

[tonygermano]

No license just means that other people can't take and reuse the documents, because they are fully protected by copyright. If we do license them, then a Creative Commons license may be more appropriate for the types of documents found in this repo.

[leovander]

I don't know how prohibitive it is for having others contribute and how it would work with the existing licenses for the original work, can you use something like the GNU AGPL v3.0 to protect from resellers? i.e. whatever licenses Elasticsearch and Mongo used to prevent another amazon from swooping in selling their project as a SaaS offering?

Not sure if it's in the spirit of what your project is ultimately about, just want to protect you guys before anyone else decides to swoop in and attempt to resell your work if that is ever in your path to want to host this for others. (the license like the above would allow users to use it, but not resell it as a service, but that verdict might be up in the air still, but is the spirit of what that license is suppose to cover).

[tonygermano]

"This repo" was specifically meant to refer to the governance documents, not the engine (which must be MPL 2.0.)

[kryskool]

Maybe we can use some creative commons