License needed

[mpderbec]

If possible, please adopt and specify an open source license, otherwise this library is being flagged as a risk in OSS inventory audits.

[nathggns]

You make a good point. Which license would you suggest that I use that would allow the best OS usage.

[mpderbec]

I would say the MIT license is one of the most popular, that's what I've been using for any of my stuff.

Thanks!

[nathggns]

@mpderbec Is this an urgent issue? I agree that it needs to be added at some point, but this project is currently under a complete rewrite, which I've added this as an issue for.

[mpderbec]

Not urgent at all, especially if you can say (in this issue) that you plan to release it under MIT (or some other permissive license).

[nathggns]

This library should be considered licensed under MIT at this time (and
since it's initial release) and an official LICENSE file will be added to
the project at some point in the future.

On 9 January 2015 at 14:05, mpderbec notifications@github.com wrote:

Not urgent at all, especially if you can say (in this issue) that you plan
to release it under MIT (or some other permissive license).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#35 (comment)
.

Thanks,
Nathaniel Higgins
http://nath.is
@nathggns http://twitter.com/nathggns