<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> On 06/06/2016 07:08 PM, Dave Crossland wrote: <blockquote class=" cite" id="mid_CAEozd0z7vnFGk5R81uW8CEf_ih0AxECkn4N_Z7j_cxa63KAeLA_mail_gmail_com" cite="mid:CAEozd0z7vnFGk5R81uW8CEf+ih0AxECkn4N=Z7j-cxa63KAeLA@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">First, I think there must be a large fraction of all github repos that have less than 10 commits with almost nothing in them and are essentially worthless. If those don't have a LICENSE file, I don't mind :)</pre> </blockquote> I think this way of looking at the issue is wrongheaded. However, my solution to this problem requires a change to GitHub's entire model... :-P I always thought it strange that public repos is the default. I do not think it makes sense to have beginners have their repos be public by default, for example. Of course someone publishing their first repo doesn't have a license--they do not know what they are doing (coding, licensing, everything). So, I would imagine that it would help beginners if they could start with private repos--maybe they just share with their friends and teachers/mentors. Then, when things start picking up speed, they choose to go public (and at that point are required to choose a license). "Open Source" confuses "public" and "private" in this way. (Google, for GSoC for example, states that Open Source means that all development happen publicly--out in the open). "Free software" makes "public" and "private" a separate matter--as long as you have the four freedoms, it is free/libre software. The GNU project, for example, was done privately at first. Only when the code was made public (i.e. distributed) did the license really matter. Before the code is distributed--when it is still private--it is neither here nor their license-wise (software freedom-wise). Dave, what I think you are trying to say is that the published code is not very mature so it does not yet matter if it has a license. Since private code doesn't need a license either, I would propose that GitHub allow noobs to have private repos... (As I said before, I understand that this would be a significant change to their business model) ...but then again I do not represent GitHub. The best I could do is share my opinion with them. Thanks for the conversation! Love it! :-) </body> </html>