Please add a License.txt

[truedat101]

Hi - it would be great if you could add a license file to this project and dependent projects. While the selection is up to you, a permissive academic license is great (MIT, Apache, BSD). If you prefer GPL copyleft licenses, a dual license is most flexible if you would like to engage in an approach for commercialization (with GPL + commercial license options you can be assured nobody can run off with anything without contributing back any source they distribute, and most real corporate lawyers would block GPLv2+ use in anything distributed for profit). If you are the sole contributor you will always have control over licensing decisions (including changing your mind about the license). I look forward to trying out the software and I am willing to contribute back what I can. Personally I put most of my non-customer work under Apache, BSD-3 clause, or MIT/X. I'd rather see more people using software than having to get lawyers to review if it is possible.

[musesum]

Most likely follow AudioKit’s trajectory. I think they were Apache, but seems now to be MIT. Will look into it.

…

On Mar 31, 2024, at 11:47 PM, David J. Kordsmeier ***@***.***> wrote: Hi - it would be great if you could add a license file to this project and dependent projects. While the selection is up to you, a permissive academic license is great (MIT, Apache, BSD). If you prefer GPL copyleft licenses, a dual license is most flexible if you would like to engage in an approach for commercialization (with GPL + commercial license options you can be assured nobody can run off with anything without contributing back any source they distribute, and most real corporate lawyers would block GPLv2+ use in anything distributed for profit). If you are the sole contributor you will always have control over licensing decisions (including changing your mind about the license). I look forward to trying out the software and I am willing to contribute back what I can. Personally I put most of my non-customer work under Apache, BSD-3 clause, or MIT/X. I'd rather see more people using software than having to get lawyers to review if it is possible. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACHBTZECGXFRPKBQI7M2ILY3D7I3AVCNFSM6AAAAABFRFA2AWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ASLTON2WKOZSGIYTONRVGMYTOMQ>. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

[musesum]

MIT Non-AI

[truedat101]

Interesting ... is it this? https://github.com/bmitc/mit-no-ai-license

I haven't seen this license before. It isn't based on anything listed in the OSI database.

https://opensource.org/licenses?ls=mit

[musesum]

From https://github.com/non-ai-licenses/non-ai-licenses/blob/main/NON-AI-MIT

…

On May 6, 2024, at 5:11 PM, David J. Kordsmeier ***@***.***> wrote: Interesting ... is it this? https://github.com/bmitc/mit-no-ai-license I haven't seen this license before. It isn't based on anything listed in the OSI database. https://opensource.org/licenses?ls=mit — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACHBT6WT3KQEZEODB3XPUDZBAL4FAVCNFSM6AAAAABFRFA2AWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAOJXGEZDSMRQGI>. You are receiving this because you commented.

[truedat101]

This has been resolved.

[musesum]

The previous license was a NO-AI MIT, which doesn't make sense for AI assisted IDEs. So, have replaced that with a mixture of licenses: standard MIT for a couple Mu* packages, and a placeholder (called Unicorn Jockey UJ) for DeepMuse and other Mu* packages.

Kenji mention that NASA can only use a small number of standard Licenses, internally. So, am exploring Apache dual license. Meanwhile, UJ is already variant of Apache, for personal and small business use. Am exploring.