Using SPDX UNLICENSED is not the same as UNLICENSE

[d1onys1us]

I noticed quite a few files using SPDX UNLICENSED at the top.

I just want to clear up if this is intentional, or if this is referring to https://unlicense.org, because they are technically very different and I am not sure if I am allowed to use this work. (lack of license or usage of UNLICENSED implies I do not have permission).

sources:

• https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/12412
• https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/
• Add “NONE” to the license expression syntax spdx/spdx-spec#49

Thanks!

[pinkiebell]

Yes, I intended to mean the unlicense.org. However, it is being used as a placeholder because we didn't decided yet which license we are going to use here. But it looks like it will be MIT. Consider this to be resolved soon 👌

[d1onys1us]

thanks @pinkiebell , this is definitely sufficient to be safer to use. FYI, as I am using this library, I am not sure who to attribute to. A root LICENSE.md would help if attribution is something desired here.

[pinkiebell]

If you want to include it, you can refer to this organization. With a link or just the name. Whatever you see fit 👌