-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 237
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Discuss: License Change? BSD, MIT, Apache. #4937
Comments
I also vote for MIT. @mr-c - do you have an opinion? |
I'm not seeing any advantage to switching licenses. All the software I maintain for the CWL project is Apache 2.0 licensed. Mixing any of the above mentioned licenses is allowed, so why go through the pain of relicensing? |
I think the complexity of the Apache 2.0 license vs. MIT, and the second clause of the patent provision, scare off some (e.g. Broad). I think that is a totally reasonable concern for this and a reason to switch. |
If you want to use a different license, then (**mixed license meaning: Apache 2.0 for old contributions, MIT for new contributions) I'm helping the Galaxy project to finish their switch to MIT from AFL and it takes a long time. They required MIT for new contributions starting on 2021-04-07 and we are still working through the 400+ contributors. Obviously Galaxy is a bigger project, but I wanted to share that datapoint. |
As the title suggests, we should discuss the positives and negatives of the different licenses.
UCSC prefers MIT and BSD. Apache is better for patents I believe.
From Max Xiong at StackExchange:
┆Issue is synchronized with this Jira Story
┆Issue Number: TOIL-1572
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: