Do you guys have an objection of me placing in the wiki repo, MIT licenses for github actions that require a copy of the license be kept?
If we’re just using the actions, do we need to host a copy of the license?
I was thinking not but when reading up on it I ran across this,
If you’re starting from a blank slate, it’s hard to go wrong with the MIT License. It’s short, very easy to understand, and allows anyone to do anything so long as they keep a copy of the license, including your copyright notice. You’ll be able to release the project under a different license if you ever need to.
But the license themselves have this line,
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.
So to me that says not required.
Ok, i think you are right, not needed.
Having MIT - licensed software work server-side (e.g. as a PHP script) to produce a HTML page is not redistributing the software, unless the program includes itself in its output.
Since the workflow file using the action is excluded, I would say not needed.
Yes, under typical (I.e, any open source license) software licenses you only need to have a copy of the license if you’re distributing the code (in source & usually in binary form also). So long as we don’t have any copies of the actions themselves in the repos we don’t need to keep any copies of the licenses.
Ok, great, thanks.