No license

[garydgregory]

Hi,

I'd like to use some of these files as test fixtures for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMPRESS-620 in https://github.com/apache/commons-compress but there is no license policy defined in this GitHub project.

Any thoughts on adding a license to this project?

The Apache 2.0 license would be best from the Apache Commons Compress POV ;-)

[sairuk]

you can see some previous discussion on this topic here

This is a historical archive of others works, you'd probably have to review each artpack for their own licensing (e.g. we-will.sue) and/or approach each of the artists individually for permission to use their works.

[garydgregory]

So every file in here is a copyright violation?

[sairuk]

@lordscarlet may be better able to cover what agreements are in place for this archive explicitly, i don't think its going to be as black and white as you'd like it to be.

I'd expect an overarching license for this repo could only be applied with consent of the individual artists and/or groups. As this repo contains artpacks (not individual ansis) a group level agreement may be good enough, where as my previous example ACiD provided these expectations in their we-will.sue document within their artpack., and as this is a historical archive tracking down old groups becomes more difficult as time passes to have this discussion is full.

I am not aware of an existing license that would fit oob but one may exist.

[lordscarlet]

It's a tough situation. I suppose I should try to figure out a license that makes sense, but all of this work was released in a time when licenses were far less of a consideration. There was an unwritten understanding that you could distribute it freely in it's original form, but unless otherwise stated it should only be used for it's original intent (generally for a specific bulletin board).

…

On Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 7:34 PM sairuk ***@***.***> wrote: @lordscarlet <https://github.com/lordscarlet> may be better able to cover what agreements are in place for this archive explicitly, i don't think its going to be as black and white as you'd like it to be. I'd expect an overarching license for this repo could only be applied with consent of the individual artists and/or groups. As this repo contains artpacks (not individual ansis) a group level agreement may be good enough, where as my previous example ACiD provided these expectations in their we-will.sue document within their artpack., and as this is a historical archive tracking down old groups becomes more difficult as time passes to have this discussion is full. I am not aware of an existing license that would fit oob but one may exist. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#50 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAEMHZE5QDNTMDB4WQAAJLW4TYGTANCNFSM6AAAAAAV627J5M> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[sairuk]

The MAME project had a similar problem when they were attempting to move ~20y of contributions to GPL licensing. I believe they attempted to contact all the previous contributors but due to difficulties and/or the results of that now manage split licensing throughout the project with GPL v2 as the overarching project license, although I don't see that fitting here it may help with an approach.

https://www.mamedev.org/legal.html