Do we want to pick an open content license for our repo?

[MoralCode]

we use the MIT license but do we want to explicitly declare a license for our non-code content (like one of the creative commons licenses?)

[omkar-foss]

How about CC0 or CC BY-SA 4?

[MoralCode]

CC-BY-SA sounds good

[justwheel]

Is there a standard for content licenses used already in CHAOSS? It would probably be worthwhile to see what other WGs have done, if they have, so it is possible to standardize on a preferred license in our outputs. For the kind of work we are producing which helps others devise their own research and documentation, I prefer a more permissive content license like CC BY 4.0.

…

-- Justin Wheeler (he/him) 🔗 jwheel.org Sent from Proton Mail for Android.

-------- Original Message --------

On Friday, 09/11/26 at 17:16 Adrian Edwards ***@***.***> wrote: **MoralCode** left a comment (chaoss/wg-ai-alignment#94) CC-BY-SA sounds good — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. Triage notifications, keep track of coding agent tasks and review pull requests on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS and Android. Download it today! You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[MoralCode]

from what i can see from the data policy doc on the CHAOSS website, there doesnt seem to be a current policy beyond "all your chat messages/interactions with the community are MIT licensed" - which may not hold up as a content license but sure