@andrew I was thinking http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ , any objections?

From http://creativecommons.org/software:

Creative Commons recommends and uses free and open source software licenses for software.

So I'd add something like the following to the footer of the website (covering the content of the site) and use a regular software license for the repo:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Unless I'm missing something, there isn't much software in this repo. It's pretty much all content + assets?

I'm no licensing expert, that was just my interpretation, we do have a few software-y bits, and jekyll is required to generate the HTML which is why I thought that. Either way, I don't think it matters too much here.

ccing @benbalter in just because I'm intrigued to see what he knows about licensing gh-pages sites and what other people have done.

Any more thoughts on this @felixge?

@andrew I'm still thinking CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. IMO it's what we want, especially since it captures our desire to protect the NodeCopter brand from commercial exploitation.