📄 update license to CC BY 4.0

[ctcpip]

switches to the OpenJS Foundation preferred license which is more permissive than the currently used CC BY-SA 3.0

edit: we could instead use the MIT license. I don't have strong feelings either way and only chose CC because the existing license is CC

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for expressjscom-preview ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	c07e0bb
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/expressjscom-preview/deploys/67d98bbf03463d0008156708
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1730--expressjscom-preview.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[bjohansebas]

I would prefer to keep it as MIT, and have consistency across all the repositories in the organization

[wesleytodd]

IANAL so have no strong opinion either way, but I agree that consistency across the project is a benefit of going MIT. Is there no more process or requirements for changing the licensing of the docs?

[ctcpip]

Is there no more process or requirements for changing the licensing of the docs?

nope, as long as we are using a license approved by the foundation, which this one and the MIT license both are

[bjohansebas]

To prevent this from being merged until we decide which license to have.

[UlisesGascon]

LGTM! I am also +1 for MIT if we decided to use that one

[wesleytodd]

I would be fine with this or MIT. MIT is consistent with all the other code project's licenses, and from my very limited quick research they are similar enough that it shouldn't have a meaningful effect on anything we are doing here.

[ctcpip]

discussed at TC meeting today. we agreed to proceed with the CC license, but left the possibility open for future licensing under MIT, or dual-licensing

[bjohansebas]

@ctcpip whenever you want, you can merge it. I'm not sure if there's anything else to do.