Skip to main content
Open Source

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

2
  • After reading this question and its answers I think there is still plenty about which to be confused. For instance, I have a repo with a ".LICENSE" file, which is apparently not automatically interpreted by Github as being a license since it isn't titled "license.txt" or "license.md". I have also included the same license text at the head of every source file, and at the end of the README.md. Presumably this should cover all the bases, but without talking to an actual lawyer and/or knowing a lot about the legal precedents surrounding the issue it's nigh impossible to know if it's covered. Commented Sep 16, 2017 at 17:54
  • PS I remember a few months ago a large stir in the online community about changes to Github's policies, with many arguing that the new terms meant traditional licences were no longer compatible with Github's site terms and uploading code to Github may automatically violate the GPL because the site reserves the right to cut/paste sections for independent display for the business purposes of the website at their sole discretion. Commented Sep 16, 2017 at 17:55