github - Does it matter what I name my open source license file? -

i have been starting try upload of stuff github, , have read few articles lately hard data showing most of repositories on github aren't licensed properly. not case. decided start including mit license of projects on , got wondering whether should name license.txt, or perhaps license.md (i one) better? began wonder more general question: matter name file holds open source license at all? example project licensed if have valid license inside file named voidlicense.md? know bit contrived, demonstrates trying ask. there limits on name file place license in, or matter file placed? if buried deep down in directory structure somewhere still count? if there else in file still count? imagine if license changed template @ not considered valid mit license, if else in file void it?

it doesn't matter much, long choose sensible.

since you're using open source license, want make easy fellow developer discover may in fact use code under mit license. done making license file discoverable.

anything license, license.md, license.txt in root of repository can considered discoverable. think may assume if human not find license file, else - copying too. want prevent conflicting claims licensing. don't in readme licensed under bsd, while saying in separate license file it's mit.

you may want consider discoverability non-human agents. npm looks "license" field in package.json, , displays on package info page @ npmjs.org.

the commonjs spec speaks of "licenses" field. know fact "license" supported npm though, since i'm using myself. know npm accepts simple string value license field. i.e. "license":"mit" works.

licenses - array of licenses under package provided. property not legally binding , not mean package licensed under terms define in property. each license hash "type" property specifying type of license , url property linking actual text. if license 1 of official open source licenses official license name or abbreviation may explicated "type" property. if abbreviation provided (in parentheses), abbreviation must used.

http://wiki.commonjs.org/wiki/packages/1.1

also, it's know in principle, retain copyright on publish. if no license specified, or (potential) user cannot find license, must assume has no license use work, other fair-use provisions under country's copyright laws. see discussion: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/148146/open-source-code-with-no-license-can-i-fork-it http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/04/pick-a-license-any-license.html

if license changed template @ not considered valid mit license, if else in file void it?

it indeed confusing @ same time claim making available under mit license, while actual license text says (slightly) different. however, absolutely entitled license work way want (within limits of law. requirements can't made - , void).

i think biggest risk (if anything) of slight ambiguity in licensing (potential) user might claim under impression entitled use work under terms of mit license, because license header said so. you'd have more difficulty suing person in court wrongdoing if did not adhere additional terms. claim innocence, were.

i'd say: don't use name of established license (mit, bsd, gpl, etc) unless want license under these terms. or if use such name, "mit+my_requirements" or so. "mit" wouldn't right "summary".