Yes, technically your code is open source as soon as you add an approved open source license. Second, you should track your codebase in a git repository and upload it to a public GitHub repository. It's fine, in my opinion, to make the code public before it's perfected, just perhaps make a work-in-progress note in the README. Honestly, with most open source software, the assumption is that it's always in progress.
But you can put the code on GitHub with an appropriate copy left license
Copyleft licenses are strict licenses. Personally I prefer more permissive licenses like MIT or BSD 3-Clause. These licenses are less likely to cause incompatibilities. Copyleft (in theory) requires that anyone who changes & distributes the code, must also make their changes public. In practice, it can create legal headaches and discourage reuse.
Anyways, happy to answer any questions.
The main goal for open sourcing blocktivity is to allow anyone to improve from where I am today. I heard so many people wanting to contribute, it felt like the right move.
I didn't dig into the licensing. I though you could simply " track your codebase in a git repository and upload it to a public GitHub repository" and that was it.
I'll dig more into the licensing thing but the simpliest form will be the one.
What is the purpose of the license ? Can't anyone participate or use what I already done without a license saying so ?
Licenses are necessary for reuse due to copyright, which automatically protects original works of authorship such as code. Without a license, default copyright protections apply which can prevent people from copying your code or making any derivatives.
Similar to how it's technically possible to reuse any image you find online, however, it may be copyright infringement unless you get permission from its creator. Open source software licenses essentially grant anyone permission to reuse your code under certain conditions. They also have disclaimers which are important. So if somehow blocktivity causes someone financial loss, you would not be responsible.
Take a look at https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/ for more information the problem of not having a license.
They can. It is just a matter of being protected. If it isn't licensed, the risk is that some other person or company can claim it as theirs and license it such that it is proprietary ie. trademarked.
My opinion, and I wouldn't take it for much is go with the MIT license and don't worry much. In a nutshell, it allows anyone to take it and do what they want with it and you won't have to worry about keeping it free or compatible with other open source license.
Sorry the license thing is kind of a drag when you just want to create.
Good point. I agree 100% MIT is my preference. I guess I didn't differentiate between Copyleft and open.