The repository has no LICENSE file and the README names no license. REPO_POLICIES.md requires both ("MIT, GPL, or WTFPL. Ask the user for new projects"), and a 1.0 cannot be tagged without one.
Question for sneak: which license?
MIT (recommended): the policy's own example, and the least friction for anyone who wants to follow the derivation path in another tool, which the README invites.
GPL-3.0.
WTFPL.
Once answered, the work is: add LICENSE in the root with the chosen text and the year and name sneak, and make the README's first line and License section name it.
Definition of done
sneak has named the license in a comment here.
LICENSE exists in the root with that license's standard text; the README names the same license in its first line and License section.
make check green. Branch cut from next, PR base next.
Model: fable-5-1
The repository has no `LICENSE` file and the README names no license. `REPO_POLICIES.md` requires both ("MIT, GPL, or WTFPL. Ask the user for new projects"), and a 1.0 cannot be tagged without one.
**Question for sneak:** which license?
- MIT (recommended): the policy's own example, and the least friction for anyone who wants to follow the derivation path in another tool, which the README invites.
- GPL-3.0.
- WTFPL.
Once answered, the work is: add `LICENSE` in the root with the chosen text and the year and name `sneak`, and make the README's first line and License section name it.
## Definition of done
- sneak has named the license in a comment here.
- `LICENSE` exists in the root with that license's standard text; the README names the same license in its first line and License section.
- `make check` green. Branch cut from `next`, PR base `next`.
Model: fable-5-1
sneak
was assigned by clawbot2026-09-21 09:17:56 +02:00
Settled by sneak's standing licence ruling of 2026-08-09: a public repo with no LICENSE gets MIT, with sneak as the copyright holder and the current year; nothing to ask. keyfunc is public and has no LICENSE on main or next. So the licence is MIT, and this no longer waits on sneak. The rest of the definition of done above stands (the README's first line and License section name MIT); the work lands on next when keyfunc resumes.
Model: opus-5-5
Settled by sneak's standing licence ruling of 2026-08-09: a public repo with no `LICENSE` gets MIT, with sneak as the copyright holder and the current year; nothing to ask. keyfunc is public and has no `LICENSE` on `main` or `next`. So the licence is MIT, and this no longer waits on sneak. The rest of the definition of done above stands (the README's first line and License section name MIT); the work lands on `next` when keyfunc resumes.
Model: opus-5-5
sneak
was unassigned by clawbot2026-09-25 07:54:18 +02:00
clawbot
self-assigned this 2026-09-25 07:54:18 +02:00
Ruling (sneak, 25 September): MIT is the licence for keyfunc, as he has now decided himself. The rule of 2026-08-09 that my comment above relied on is withdrawn: a repo without a licence gets one only when sneak picks it himself. The rest of the definition of done above stands.
Model: opus-5-5
Ruling (sneak, 25 September): MIT is the licence for keyfunc, as he has now decided himself. The rule of 2026-08-09 that my comment above relied on is withdrawn: a repo without a licence gets one only when sneak picks it himself. The rest of the definition of done above stands.
Model: opus-5-5
Blocking a user prevents them from interacting with repositories, such as opening or commenting on pull requests or issues. Learn more about blocking a user.
The repository has no
LICENSEfile and the README names no license.REPO_POLICIES.mdrequires both ("MIT, GPL, or WTFPL. Ask the user for new projects"), and a 1.0 cannot be tagged without one.Question for sneak: which license?
Once answered, the work is: add
LICENSEin the root with the chosen text and the year and namesneak, and make the README's first line and License section name it.Definition of done
LICENSEexists in the root with that license's standard text; the README names the same license in its first line and License section.make checkgreen. Branch cut fromnext, PR basenext.Model: fable-5-1
Settled by sneak's standing licence ruling of 2026-08-09: a public repo with no
LICENSEgets MIT, with sneak as the copyright holder and the current year; nothing to ask. keyfunc is public and has noLICENSEonmainornext. So the licence is MIT, and this no longer waits on sneak. The rest of the definition of done above stands (the README's first line and License section name MIT); the work lands onnextwhen keyfunc resumes.Model: opus-5-5
countermand that. MIT is fine for these but unlicensed repos must have a license decided by me personally.
Ruling (sneak, 25 September): MIT is the licence for keyfunc, as he has now decided himself. The rule of 2026-08-09 that my comment above relied on is withdrawn: a repo without a licence gets one only when sneak picks it himself. The rest of the definition of done above stands.
Model: opus-5-5