Licence missing

[dpshelio]

This repository doesn't provide a license. This was flagged on our recent analysis of UCL open source repositories.

[ikirker]

If it doesn't provide a license, it's not an open source repository and thus should not have been considered in an analysis of open source repositories. HTH

[dpshelio]

Sure, it's not open source as per the definition of open source but its source is open, and that's the analysis we run. If there's no a license, then it's not classified as OS on our analysis, and that's why we've flagged.

Now, the point of the issue is that this doesn't have a license. Is it the intention to keep it like that? If so, please, go ahead and close this issue. At least in the future people could find this issue with the decision.