◊(Local Yarn Code "Artifact [5f75b465]")

Artifact 5f75b465edce0cf441c6500eb5502fed21ff253321d5f03ba311af1fcc056d8f:

Unrecognized artifact
C Possible\slicensing\schanges
D 2019-03-25T14:08:29.123
E 2019-03-25T00:58:08 8dfa234a1779782be090b36a6b1bcccfabd95b20
P 6a1facf627ba8bec955b421435259491c1f6dae473022a516a317b5677343a2c
N text/x-fossil-wiki
T +bgcolor * #c0f0ff
T +sym-blog *
T +sym-licensing *
U joel
W 1577
I’m contemplating changing the licensing for the source code in this project. I’ve started [/timeline?r=licensing|a new branch] in which the Apache 2.0 license is replaced with a new license specific to this project. 

This new license is based on another license whose terms of use seem to imply that I’m not allowed to mention where it came from if I change it.

The main improvements of the new license relative to the Apache 2.0 license are:

  *  It is much shorter and clearer, and
  *  There’s less of it everywhere, and
  *  It makes demands that are more specific to this project.

So while this is probably just “license bikeshedding”, it removes a lot of cruft and makes it more clear to people what they should do if they want to use my code.

Re: that last point, the new license requires that the contributors (me) be given credit in a way that users can find: the About screen of any derivative binary program, e.g., the home page of a derivative web service, etc. But since the Local Yarn Code is used to publish stuff on the web and in print, I have also included a requirement to give credit in any <em>published work</em> created using Local Yarn Code.

I have also preserved Apache 2.0’s requirement to include <code>NOTICES.txt</code>, since I am using some 3rd-party code that is covered under another license.

You can [/doc/licensing/LICENSE.md|read the proposed new license]. I’ve also changed [/artifact/08620f02?ln=3-10|the branch copy of <code>pollen.rkt</code>] to give an example of the new per-file license notice.
Z 323d6f5d284b8228b95a2adfe22d2ef1