Hi — thanks for the work on silverscript and the KCC20 book; the declaration-macro system in docs/DECL.md and the KCC20+KCC20Minter examples are a remarkable reference.
Quick licence question, since we're scoping downstream work that would be derivative of the KCC20 reference contracts and the declaration patterns: the LICENSE file at the repo root declares ISC ("Copyright 2026 Kaspa Developers"), while Cargo.toml line 13 sets workspace.package.license = "MIT". These two assertions are inconsistent at commit 2c46231.
Could you confirm which is authoritative for the repo overall, and whether the same licence is intended to cover (a) the compiler source, (b) the KCC20+KCC20Minter example contracts, and (c) the documentation under docs/? Happy to send a PR aligning the manifest with whichever is correct.
For context: we're writing compliance-grade pattern profiles on top of the declaration system and would like to be unambiguous about derivative-work licensing terms before publishing.
Thanks!
Hi — thanks for the work on silverscript and the KCC20 book; the declaration-macro system in
docs/DECL.mdand the KCC20+KCC20Minter examples are a remarkable reference.Quick licence question, since we're scoping downstream work that would be derivative of the KCC20 reference contracts and the declaration patterns: the LICENSE file at the repo root declares ISC ("Copyright 2026 Kaspa Developers"), while
Cargo.tomlline 13 setsworkspace.package.license = "MIT". These two assertions are inconsistent at commit2c46231.Could you confirm which is authoritative for the repo overall, and whether the same licence is intended to cover (a) the compiler source, (b) the KCC20+KCC20Minter example contracts, and (c) the documentation under
docs/? Happy to send a PR aligning the manifest with whichever is correct.For context: we're writing compliance-grade pattern profiles on top of the declaration system and would like to be unambiguous about derivative-work licensing terms before publishing.
Thanks!