License question

[meono]

Hi,

I've just noticed that the License on the repository isn't one of the standard open ones. My first question is - would it be possible to change it to a more permissive one?

If that isn't agreeable to you, I have another question to clarify some parts of the License. There is a "No distribution" clause here. While an archival copy is allowed, a public fork to archive/modify/update the workflow (and possibly generate pull requests) could be considered sharing. Can you please clarify how you see this?

Thanks for creating/sharing this workflow.

[m-jahn]

dear @meono , thanks for your interest in this workflow!
I'm really sorry for getting back to you so late: this issue just fell below the radar for some reason.

Personally I would agree to change the license to a more permissive one, such as GPL3 or most preferably, MIT.
However I am not the main developer and will need to discuss this with our team, pinging here @tfwulff @rabioinf @finstermeier.

As far as the current license is concerned, I see not much room for forks/pull requests, which is indeed not really fostering collaboration.

[meono]

Dear Michael,

Thank you very much for the reply and considering a different license option. Looking forward to your team's opinions.

[m-jahn]

dear @meono, we have decided to publish the next release under the more permissive MIT license. This means you are free to fork, copy and use the pipeline at your will as long as you give credit to us as authors.
We are also interested in contributions, so if you have updates, issues etc please lets us know here through github.