Missing LICENSE

[theblackhole]

Hi @peoro ,

I just realized the project is missing an open-source license which is mandatory for people to freely contribute to the project and maybe also for us to publish Docker images like with the current GitHub Action (btw I can't delete published docker images. I think you might have to grant me additional permissions for that).

Depending on how restrictive you want this to be:

• it could be the most open MIT (For the copyright holder, several choices "<your full name>", "<your full name> and telegram-signal-bridge Contributors" or "The telegram-signal-bridge Authors" but I think it's recommended for legal reasons to have at least an identifiable individual or an organization as the holder)
• or maybe a slightly less open Apache 2.0?
• or the most restrictive GPL v3.0?
• other?

After the license has been chosen, I plan to publish the first github release (0.1.0) with my now-merged PR if that suits you.

[peoro]

What do you suggest for a license? I'm happy to let anyone do whatever they please with the few lines of JS I originally wrote.

About the docker images, I only looked for a few minutes but couldn't figure out a way to give you that permission. The page you linked says that "you must have admin access to the package", but it seems like "For personal repositories [...] you cannot assign admin rights".

Maybe it's already the time to move to an organization repository?

[theblackhole]

Well for a small project like this and to "let anyone do whatever they please with the few lines of JS" you wrote (and I 100% agree with you for what I wrote) MIT would be a perfect match (or the WTFPL 😁)
The only thing is, with MIT, the code owner (you, the creator) is also the owner of the license. So I think in order for the license to be valid, the owner should be pubicly identifiable (= putting your real name on the license) and not everyone is comfortable with that while I don't think that's the case for the other more restrictive licenses.

As for the Docker images, it's a shame but there is nothing important that needs to be removed. I just didn't want to have an image published without a license (which implies copyright by default) and that's what happened after merging my PR.
So I don't think we need to move to an org for now, the current workflow works.