Assigning "goodness" and "badness" to licenses

[steven-bellock]

Select Topic Area

Question

Body

What rubric does GitHub use when assigning "goodness" (green checkmark) and "badness" (red X) to a license? For example

As a repository maintainer the fact that I don't have to provide a warranty or am liable for the code is a "good thing" (green checkmark).

[mecodeatlas]

Thanks for posting in the GitHub Community, @steven-bellock!

We're happy you're here. You are more likely to get a useful response if you are posting your question in the applicable category, the Discussions category is solely related to conversations around the GitHub product Discussions. This question should be in the General category. I've gone ahead and moved it for you. Good luck!

[spenserblack]

It's not really "good" and "bad" but more like "can" and "can't". The licensed software

• can be used in commercial use
• can be modified
• can be distributed
• can be used privately (you're not required to make the source code public)

And the licensed software has limited liability and no warranty.

Interestingly, choosealicense.com (curated by GitHub) doesn't use checks and Xs, but instead uses circles.

---

Obligatory "I am not a lawyer" statement: this is just my personal understanding based on the information provided by the summary, and you should consult a legal expert to fully understand what a license does and doesn't permit.

[steven-bellock]

choosealicense also uses color coding

but what you are saying is that the colors are effectively meaningless. In theory GitHub could represent these permissions and limitations with no colors at all, ie

Permissions	Limitations
Commercial use	Liability
Distribution	Warranty

and the meaning would not be lost.

[spenserblack]

In theory GitHub could represent these permissions and limitations with no colors at all ... and the meaning would not be lost.

Yes, I suppose so. Personally, I believe that color coding should never be important, only a visual guide, because putting too much importance on color coding excludes users with visual impairments (e.g. red-green colorblindness). So I think it's a good thing that the colors aren't necessary for understanding.

Green and red do have other common meanings besides "good" and "bad," though. One other common meaning is "go" and "stop," like a stoplight. So one could possibly read this as "go (use this license) if you want to allow commercial use," "stop (using this license) if you want to provide a warranty," etc.

I'm not necessarily defending the current color/icon coding used, and perhaps there's a better way, but I'm just guessing at the thought processes that might have gone into the design.