Would you consider relicensing?

[sharkdp]

When we initially replaced the bat source code with the ansi_colours dependency (sharkdp/bat#319), I didn't notice that ansi_colours was LGPL3 licensed.

As we statically link against ansi_colours, we would need to license bat under LGP3 was well (see sharkdp/bat#792).

Would you consider to license ansi_colours under MIT (could be dual license)?

[sharkdp]

see sharkdp/bat#792

[LucaCiucci]

@mina86 I read you answer in sharkdp/bat#792, but I have ansi_colours in the dependency tree of a colsed-source app I'm developing and planning to distribute.
Is there any reason to have LGPL license only for this crate? I can just drop the ansi_colours dependency, but I think it would be nice have a second more permissive license.

[mina86]

Is there any reason to have LGPL license only for this crate?

Yes, the reason is for this crate to remain free software.

[LucaCiucci]

But wouldn't it be possible to provide a second license option such as Apache or BSD? I'm just asking, my knowledge is not very good in this field.

[mina86]

But wouldn't it be possible to provide a second license option such as Apache or BSD? I'm just asking, my knowledge is not very good in this field.

No, because then the crate could be included in a closed-source project without providing sources for it.

[LucaCiucci]

Understood, thanks for the clarification