please add License

[mefuller]

In order to continue packaging cantera for Fedora, this repository will require a license (preferably the same as the main cantera package)

[bryanwweber]

Hi Mark, can you say more about why a license is needed? I believe these files cannot be subject to copyright because they are data, not intellectual property.

[mefuller]

I'm not sure that just because something is data that it doesn't need a license - I'll plan on packaging 3.1 without this repo for now and try to investigate
Fedora licensing guidance is at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/

[bryanwweber]

I'm not sure that just because something is data that it doesn't need a license

IANAL, but if something doesn't qualify as intellectual property, I'm not sure there's anything to license. That is, a license grants an explicit right for someone to use something that belongs to someone else. Likewise, one need not obtain a license to use supplemental material associated with a paper as far as I know (you don't even usually need to buy/subscribe for the article text).

In any case, a statement on the status of this repository with respect to its content is probably appropriate.

[ischoegl]

Would the "Unlicense" qualify? see link

[speth]

I think the thing we need to make clear to anyone who uses this data is that we aren't the "authors" of these mechanisms, and aren't claiming to grant a license. That said, there's certainly evidence that the people who assembled these mechanisms in the first place don't think these are protected works that require a license, permissive or otherwise. The only common requirement is a request to cite certain papers if the data is used in a scientific publication.

[mefuller]

Would the "Unlicense" qualify? see link

For my purposes, yes - it's on the list of allowed licenses: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/

[ischoegl]

I think the thing we need to make clear to anyone who uses this data is that we aren't the "authors" of these mechanisms, and aren't claiming to grant a license. That said, there's certainly evidence that the people who assembled these mechanisms in the first place don't think these are protected works that require a license, permissive or otherwise. The only common requirement is a request to cite certain papers if the data is used in a scientific publication.

I believe a suitable README.md could be added to ensure that this is understood.