Add a license?

[manodeep]

There isn't any license in the root of the repo. If there are no problems, might be good to add a (permissive) license.

[anton-seaice]

I think our view on this is that this repository doesn't contain software, and it only contains configuration files, and as such doesn't need a license

[manodeep]

Hmm - everything requires a license if others are to view/use/modify it. In theory, without an explicit license, people "shouldn't" look at any contents of any file on that repo, with the caveat that GitHub TOS allows you to fork a public repo and then see the files in the forked repo. Here's one relevant discussion: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1720/what-can-i-assume-if-a-publicly-published-project-has-no-license

[anton-seaice]

I am very out of my depth here...

It appears we use CC BY 4.0 in this circumstance

e.g.

https://github.com/ACCESS-NRI/dev-docs/wiki/Licensing

https://github.com/ACCESS-NRI/access-esm1.5-configs/blob/main/LICENSE

I suggest raising an issue on the dev-docs repo to confirm and then we can update the dev-docs wiki ?

[manodeep]

Heh - well that makes two of us :). The thing I know for sure is that no license implies "all rights reserved" - which I am fairly certain is not the ACCESS-NRI principle.

Agreed that the second link to the ESM-configs confirms that the intent is for a CC-BY license for the configs.

[micaeljtoliveira]

It appears we use CC BY 4.0 in this circumstance

I guess it would not hurt to add a license file to make this explicit.