Create LICENSE

[valschmidt]

Added an MIT license to be permissible while retaining a copyright. However since the government cannot hold copyright on anything, a create commons zero license might be more appropriate. Open for discussion.

[msmith-ccom]

Hey Val, I would suggest using a GNU GPL or LGPL license instead of the MIT license. It would fit inline with the creative commons zero suggestion you mentioned

[valschmidt]

Do you have an argument for why? I would not want a license that requires any use of the code to also be open source, or prevent its use in any way. I just don’t see the need for it, given that folks in the government can’t even copyright their code. I was debating on the even more permissive CC zero license that doesn’t even require the copyright license be retained for that reason. The Mit license seemed a good compromise. Val

…

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 18, 2019, at 09:09, Michael Smith ***@***.***> wrote:  Hey Val, I would suggest using a GNU GPL or LGPL license instead of the MIT license — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

[msmith-ccom]

Not a particularly strong one, I guess.
The GNU LGPL is what is primarily used for hydrOffice which has many of the apps integrated into Pydro which is why I suggested it. From Pydro, there is a license app which lists Pydro as a CC0 license. So that might be the most prudent. It would be good to get a NOAA perspective if they have any particular restrictions on there end (@GlenRice-NOAA , @ericgyounkin ). Otherwise, we can stick with the MIT one.

[GlenRice-NOAA]

Code written by federal employees (and contractors if their contract is stipulated as such) is in the public domain as discussed here. My understanding is the university is required to think about IP as a condition of their grant and this results in the often used LGPL license.