Licensing discussion about rhousehunter HOT 6 CLOSED

Hi @JuntingHe,

Thank you so much for kick-starting this discussion and so beautifully summarizing these different options for us. I agree that the MIT License is the best option given its permissiveness and protection from liabilities.

Best,
Ela

from rhousehunter.

Hi @JuntingHe,

Thank you for the detailed information about each option. I think that the MIT License looks the most appropriate for our project.

Best,
Elina

from rhousehunter.

• To set up issue for discussion on Licensing
• Lead discussion

• Examine the MIT license we are currently using
• Discuss and reason the license choice
• Link this issue to the licensing issue in Python

from rhousehunter.

Hi team, after checking the https://choosealicense.com/, I think the following license may be some suitable options for our package.

• MIT license: short and simple permissive, requiring preservation of copyright and license notices

  • Permission: commercial use, distribution, modification, private use
  • Conditions: license and copyright notice, disclose source, same license, state changes

• Boost Software License: simple permissive, requiring preservation of copyright and license notices

  • Permission: commercial use, distribution, modification, private use
  • Conditions: license and copyright notice, disclose source, same license, state changes

• GNU GPLv3：strong copyleft, using a licensed work under the same license.

  • Permission: commercial use, distribution, modification, patent use, private use
  • Conditions: license and copyright notice

• Apache: permissive, requiring preservation of copyright and license notices.

  • Permission: commercial use, distribution, modification, patent use, private use
  • Conditions: license and copyright notice, state changes

Personally, I think our original MIT license is the best choice due to the following reasons:

• Boost Software License is very similar to the MIT license except that the Boost Software License has license and copyright notice for source, not just only license and copyright notice. I do not think this additional condition is necessary for our package. The MIT license is more familiar to most people, which makes life easier for users.

• The MIT license has fewer restrictions compared with GNU GPLv3 and Apache. The only restriction an MIT license places on is keeping the license and copyright notice when repurposing, redistributing, or reusing. Given that the nature of this package is a university project, a permissive and open-ended license seems the most reasonable choice.

However, there may be some drawback if we use the MIT license:

• If we want to put more restrictions on the future, the process will be very difficult.
• It does not explicitly cover patent grants.

Overall, I think base on the nature and main purpose of our package, sticking with MIT license would be a reasonable choice.

from rhousehunter.

Hi @JuntingHe! I agree with your assessment. I think MIT License would suit our package best.
Thank you for the detailed analysis.

from rhousehunter.

After discussion, our team decided to stick with our original MIT license because it is permissive and familiar to most people. Also, it fits the nature of our package.

from rhousehunter.