LICENSE currently reads "Free and open source, under Anki's license." Anki is AGPL-3.0, so this reads as AGPL-by-reference, but: (a) GitHub can't
classify it (repo shows no license), (b) "Anki's license" is a moving reference, and (c) it's ambiguous whether it was meant to cover only the Anki-derived parts or everything, including the test data (tests/Moma/).
Two suggestions:
- Vendor the actual license text (AGPL-3.0 if that's the intent), so the repo is self-describing and GitHub/tooling can classify it.
- If the Moma test data (a WeSay lexicon with audio/pictures) wasn't meant to be AGPL, state its terms separately — e.g. CC0/CC-BY for the data files.
Context: python-sil-lift will use the Moma folder as a test fixture (provenance recorded, excluded from release artifacts); clearly-licensed data would let it be redistributed cleanly.
LICENSEcurrently reads "Free and open source, under Anki's license." Anki is AGPL-3.0, so this reads as AGPL-by-reference, but: (a) GitHub can'tclassify it (repo shows no license), (b) "Anki's license" is a moving reference, and (c) it's ambiguous whether it was meant to cover only the Anki-derived parts or everything, including the test data (
tests/Moma/).Two suggestions:
Context: python-sil-lift will use the Moma folder as a test fixture (provenance recorded, excluded from release artifacts); clearly-licensed data would let it be redistributed cleanly.