chore(create-vite): mark template files as CC0

[sapphi-red]

Description

Marked template files as CC0 1.0 (public domain).

close #16228

[stackblitz]

Run & review this pull request in StackBlitz Codeflow.

[bluwy]

Sounds good to me 👍 I did a little research as well and CC0 seems like the best option to waive all copyrights. A bit unfortunate that it's a little long.

I also found this interesting link where Google folks can't patch CC0 licensed projects, but I don't think we should be deciding based on that.

[bluwy]

I think we also need to regenerate the LICENSE from the last commit

[sapphi-red]

Ah, good catch.

[patak-dev]

Nice! Sounds good to me. I wonder what others create-xxx are doing. They should all do something similar to this.

[sapphi-red]

It seems some are licenesed with MIT (unintentionally?) (facebook/create-react-app#9480) and some are unlicensed (sveltejs/template#78, vercel/next.js#28007) (which makes the template be in a blurry state).

The only one that had a public domain license I found was gatsby (0BSD: gatsbyjs/gatsby#25091).

[sapphi-red]

I replaced "files generated by create-vite" with "files generated from those files" so that we don't say anything about files generated by the redirected CLIs (e.g. create-vue, create svelte).

[bluwy]

I noticed 0BSD as a compelling alternative too, but I figured being in the public domain has lesser restrictions and concerns. But as a non-lawyer they both look similar and there shouldn't be any downsides choosing either I believe.

• https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/creative-commons-cc0-1-0-universal
• https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/bsd-0-clause-license

[sapphi-red]

Different from CC0, 0BSD and MIT No Attribution License are OSI approved licenses and might be compelling in that point.

[bluwy]

Ah, one thing I remember now is that technically 0BSD and MIT-0 are copyright licenses. You'd put your name/year etc in the license. Some 0BSD licenses don't have the copyright line, but I believe in that case it's still implicitly copyrighted. The main distinction of those licenses is that you don't need attribution, but no attribution doesn't mean waiving copyright.

CC0 technically holds copyright, but it tries to waive as much as possible by law. That means when someone uses the templates, we no longer hold the rights (as much as possible by law) to that template code. In which case, I think CC0 is still beneficial here.

(With all that said, IANAL and this is based on my own research)