License to all contributors or Public Domain maybe

[Fishrock123]

Not sure if the former is possible.

[bnoordhuis]

Is this a spiritual continuation of nodejs/node#34? I think it was pointed out in that issue that not all jurisdictions allow individuals (or non-governmental actors in general) to put things in the public domain.

[Fishrock123]

jurisdictions allow individuals (or non-governmental actors in general) to put things in the public domain.

Right. Also, no, it is not a (direct?) continuation. This is for the website only. :)

[ghostbar]

One is not exclusive of the other.

In order to license it public domain there needs to be copyright holders the license it as public domain.

Honestly, I would suggest MIT for any code and CC-by for content. Public Domain is very cool and definitely the goal for most of us but it's just too hard to actually accomplish.

[rlidwka]

Public Domain is very cool and definitely the goal for most of us but it's just too hard to actually accomplish.

CC0 should be essentially the same as public domain.

[ghostbar]

No, actually if you read the CC0 you can find:

4.a. No trademark or patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or
otherwise affected by this document.

Which differs a lot of the concept of public domain.

[therebelrobot]

Any consensus on this? Maybe CC0? I'm cool licensing any of my work on the site to CC0 or any other open license we want.

[mikeal]

I'd stick with MIT to match the main project. We should adopt the DCO and CoC of the main project as well.

[Fishrock123]

I'd stick with MIT to match the main project.

ISC is MIT without legacy nonsense.

We should adopt the DCO and CoC of the main project as well.

Agreed.

[therebelrobot]

+1 to the above

[therebelrobot]

I'm pretty sure @mikeal committed the new ISC license into the repo. I'm gonna close this for now, but if it still needs to be addressed feel free to reopen.