No License

[B33low]

I really like your project and the idea that you release it quickly for public interest.
However your project is not usable legally right now. Without specifying a license your code is by default under copyright and no one is legally allowed to use it or improve it.

From what you told in the video I would assume that your objective was to release it under an open-source license and I would highly suggest you to add a LICENSE file specifying it.

The most common one are MIT, GPL and Apache2. You can find more specific information here:
https://www.exygy.com/blog/which-license-should-i-use-mit-vs-apache-vs-gpl

Thanks for your work, I am really interested to see what will result and emerge from it.

[TheEnbyperor]

It would be great to see more use of the EUPL!

[SeamusMullan]

I dont think EUPL is a good move for a project like this, since it seems the license wasn't really made for any generic code and was tailored to government / public administrations and authorities, citing their website

Nevertheless, the EUPL purpose is not to compete with other licences. It might be used primarily by public administrations, either European or national, that would need a common licensing instrument to mutualise or share software and knowledge.

I think a license like MIT or GPL better suits this since it guarantees globally that people can use the code freely, but ofc this is just my 2 cents and realistically the creator decides the license :/

[FusionSandwich]

I second MIT. I don't have a ton of experience with GPL but from what I understand it's a good option. You could also checkout apache 2.0 https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

[piranna]

MIT / ISC / BSD-2 (they are basically the same with different wording, being prefered ISC since it's simpler written) are the most flexible ones, basically they only claim to put the name of the original author, later you can do whatever you want with the code.

GPL, on the other hand, force any other software using directly this code to also being published as GPL.

[petterreinholdtsen]

@ConsistentlyInconsistentYT Does your amount of feedback so far on this issue mean you are happy with the current copyright terms of the code?

[Emersh0w]

Just opened a Pull Request for the MIT License, so the only thing ConsistentlyInconsistentYT has to do, is accept the PR. I'd recommend to just do a PR for the License you want, and propose changes to the README.MD

This is unlicensed but it's Open Source so just create a PR if you want, he can just deny if he wants to.