MIT license
dtarakanov1 opened this issue · comments
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
The BSD-3-Clause license type complicates the filesystem library usage.
Describe the solution you'd like
The MIT license is more permissive, so it would be nice to apply it instead.
Describe alternatives you've considered
Any other permissive licenses are welcome.
Additional context
Our team is going to open source some library (under MIT license) and having a dependency on the BSD license is not okay then. So if the license type is not changed, we'll have to find another filesystem implementation.
I'm sorry to hear, that the chosen license is not the one fitting your needs. I selected BSD-3 because of the no-endorsement-clause and I can not see how the MIT license will give me the same effect.
Besides that, there is the legal need for all contributors to agree to a license change, and that might be difficult to obtain.
Forgot to mention.
The rule is very simple: a BSD-3-Clause licensed library cannot be used in MIT licensed products (BSD-2-Clause can).
MIT is quite commonly used, so I suspect some of the ghc.filesystem library users just violate the license.
Fortunately there is boost.filesystem as well, though it has some downsides.
It's not that I'm totally against a re-licensing to MIT, but there still is the need of every other contributor to agree to the change to MIT license, so we can give it a try:
To all contributors:
If you agree with to a re-licenseing from BSD-3-Clause to the MIT license, please reply with a 👍
👍
I hereby 👍 this.
Yes, I agree 👍 to MIT relicensing.
I agree as well. 👍
You have my blessings 👍
👍
👍
👍
I agree as well.
Yes, I agree 👍 to MIT relicensing.
I agree to MIT relicensing 👍
Great, all agreed! - Thank you so much for participating!
So I plan a release of v1.3.0 under MIT license around the upcomming weekend.
Thanks for bringing this up @dtarakanov1!
@gulrak - thank you for all your work on this library!
New release v1.3.0 just published under MIT license!