Included Licensing Decision Processes

[MattsonCam]

This pr includes two decision processes:

1. Choosing a license for a repo
2. How to include code under a restrictive license

I am thinking of changing the location of the updates made in github_strategy.md to a different section in the same file. Any constructive feedback is welcome when reviewing

[d33bs]

Nice job! Thought your additions looked good and I liked the diagrams. Would it make sense to add an example LICENSE file for reference and evolution over time? This might make it easier for someone to reference quickly, for instance, when building a new project.

[MattsonCam]

Thanks for mentioning the copyright suggestions @d33bs. Requesting a re-review after including those changes

[MattsonCam]

One thing I forgot to ask is do I need to include the (c) like in this example?
Copyright (c) 2025

[MattsonCam]

Nice job! Thought your additions looked good and I liked the diagrams. Would it make sense to add an example LICENSE file for reference and evolution over time? This might make it easier for someone to reference quickly, for instance, when building a new project.

I think it could be valuable although it may be better to just have github manage the license file creation and just mention the copyright line. Although, I could see either way. Given this alternative approach, what are your thoughts?

[d33bs]

Thanks for addressing things @MattsonCam ! Regarding deferring to the GitHub license template: sounds good! Does this get mentioned anywhere in the playbook just yet? If not, consider adding it (in case someone doesn't already know that repos can be built like this).

One thing I forgot to ask is do I need to include the (c) like in this example?

I think it'd be a good idea to include it. My understanding is that this helps establish the starting year of the copyright claim which can be useful in understanding how the copyright might apply in specific scenarios. Without this it could be that the copyright starting year is more vague (or would have to be inferred from the git log date).

[MattsonCam]

Regarding deferring to the GitHub license template: sounds good! Does this get mentioned anywhere in the playbook just yet? If not, consider adding it (in case someone doesn't already know that repos can be built like this).

Sounds good, I hadn't thought of mentioning this, but I think it would help so I'll add it

[MattsonCam]

I think it'd be a good idea to include it. My understanding is that this helps establish the starting year of the copyright claim which can be useful in understanding how the copyright might apply in specific scenarios. Without this it could be that the copyright starting year is more vague (or would have to be inferred from the git log date).

I'll also add this

[MattsonCam]

Thanks for the follow-up @d33bs, requesting another re-review now

[MattsonCam]

Thanks @d33bs, for your help with this pr! Merging now