create license

[maximiliankolb]

added the gpl 3 or higher license (as stated in README.md)
copied from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
added name, short description, year and author

[aggsol]

+1 for GPLv3

[marado]

+1. Having the license stated on top of the bash script would also be quite useful.

[dertuxmalwieder]

I would like to suggest using the MIT license instead.

[Unip0rn]

I would like to suggest using the MIT license instead.

the README states it is GPLv3. Any Code added while the README said that is to be considered licensed under GPLv3. MIT license is not compatible with GPLv3, hence a rewrite of all code mentioned or an agreement by all authors of that code would be required.
Sticking to the license that it was from the start seems the reasonable choice.

[dertuxmalwieder]

@Unip0rn commented on 16. Nov. 2021, 15:08 MEZ:

the README states it is GPLv3.

The GPLv3 is a per-file license (see vvvote/vvvote#2 for a similar discussion). The only code file in this repository is bb.sh. The header of bb.sh contains the following license information as we speak:

# (C) Carlos Fenollosa <carlos.fenollosa@gmail.com>, 2011-2016 and contributors
# https://github.com/carlesfe/bashblog/contributors

You might see the ASCII'ed copyright symbol (C) here. So no, while this repository might be GPLv3, BashBlog is not.

MIT license is not compatible with GPLv3

It is, unless you want to mix them. How would you want to mix them in a one-file project though?

Sticking to the license that it was from the start

BashBlog does not have a valid license.

[Unip0rn]

@dertuxmalwieder thanks for pointing out and sorry for me spreading false info. In that case a discussion about licensing is warranted and I will make my case:
due to a probably not uncommon misbelief I misread some things and I don't like complexity. Let's make it GPLv3 to avoid confusion.

[dertuxmalwieder]

If you dislike complexity, the short and simple MIT should be a much better idea than the very long and complex GPL.

[Unip0rn]

I know both licenses at some degree which I think is not unusual. Having a different license for the README vs. the code however seems quite unintuitive to me. So yeah, the license itself may be more complex, but it stands in a context.

[dertuxmalwieder]

READMEs are not read-only and the README does not correlate with the license anyway, at least not yet.

[Unip0rn]

READMEs are usually designed to be the first entrypoint to a project. Hence what they state SHOULD be a good indication to the rest of the project.