Should we have a default license for software created by a CG
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
revamp-2024
- Dominant language
- HTML
- Stars
- 9
- Forks
- 4
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
The current CG process is silent on how code created by a CG is licensed. One idea is to have a default license (e.g., the W3C software license) but to allow a CG to define its own license.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reading the linked CG process and W3C software license pages to understand the current licensing guidance and the proposed default. Determine the policy questions around allowing CG-specific licenses, then document the agreed licensing rule in the relevant process guidance; done means the policy is explicit and reviewed by the program maintainers.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100