Before releasing the first "public" non-beta release, I need to define a license.
The situation is a bit difficult, because
- I am including the upstream API files as the baseline inside the repo for reproducibility and because I want to make the docstrings available to language servers, but they do not come with a license and my question about license conditions has not been answered clearly so far. I would be perfectly fine with not including the files and instead fetching them dynamically from the public download endpoints, but the generated stubs would still contain many relevant parts (the docstrings mostly) so that alone does not really clear things up.
In the event that SHQ would like me to not include the files, I will also prune them from the git history.
- Pretty much all of the code was written by Claude and I only wrote the specifications, did some verification and made a few manual edits.
A public domain license would be the most reasonable, especially since this is primarily a derivative work meant for … the public domain.
A permissive license like MIT or BSD-2 could also work, probably.
Regardless of the outcome, I will unpublish the beta versions once a stable release version with a proper license arrives.
Before releasing the first "public" non-beta release, I need to define a license.
The situation is a bit difficult, because
In the event that SHQ would like me to not include the files, I will also prune them from the git history.
A public domain license would be the most reasonable, especially since this is primarily a derivative work meant for … the public domain.
A permissive license like MIT or BSD-2 could also work, probably.
Regardless of the outcome, I will unpublish the beta versions once a stable release version with a proper license arrives.