Skip to content
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

What LICENSE should we use? #8

Open
ErichDonGubler opened this issue Dec 29, 2017 · 2 comments
Open

What LICENSE should we use? #8

ErichDonGubler opened this issue Dec 29, 2017 · 2 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@ErichDonGubler
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@ricochet1k
Copy link
Contributor

I'm fine with pretty much whatever. I'm not expecting to ever make money on it. I definitely don't want to inhibit people from making money off of games they build using this project, for example. Maybe a simple attribution license?

@ErichDonGubler
Copy link
Collaborator Author

ErichDonGubler commented Jan 3, 2018

So, after doing some research, IANAL, but I think a dual MIT/Apache license would be best; here's why:

  • One limiting factor to consider is licenses that we may be held accountable for because we're using them as dependencies.

    Here's a copy of our current dependencies (transitive included) and their licenses:

    Apache-2.0 (6): gl, gl_generator, gl_generator, glutin, khronos_api, winit
    Apache-2.0/MIT (40): bitflags, bitflags, bytes, cc, cfg-if, cgl, cmake, cocoa, core-foundation, core-foundation-sys, core-graphics, foreign-types, foreign-types-shared, futures, gleam, iovec, lazy_static, lazy_static, lazycell, libc, libz-sys, log, log, memmap, miow, net2, num-traits, percent-encoding, pkg-config, rand, scoped-tls, shared_library, tempfile, tokio-core, tokio-io, tokio-timer, vcpkg, winapi, winapi-i686-pc-windows-gnu, winapi-x86_64-pc-windows-gnu
    BSD-3-Clause (4): fuchsia-zircon, fuchsia-zircon, fuchsia-zircon-sys, fuchsia-zircon-sys
    CC0-1.0 (2): osmesa-sys, x11-dl
    ISC (1): libloading
    MIT (26): android_glue, block, dlib, downcast, dwmapi-sys, gdi32-sys, kernel32-sys, malloc_buf, mio, objc, redox_syscall, shell32-sys, slab, slab, token_store, user32-sys, wayland-client, wayland-kbd, wayland-protocols, wayland-scanner, wayland-sys, wayland-window, winapi, winapi-build, ws2_32-sys, xml-rs
    MIT/Unlicense (1): byteorder
    MPL-2.0 (1): mozjs_sys
    N/A (2): mozjs, rjs
    
    

    All of these licenses are compatible with MIT and Apache:

    Desired License\Compatibility with... Apache MIT MPL
    MIT Yes - Yes
    Apache - Yes Yes

    MIT, BSD-3, ISC, and CC0 licenses are so permissive that I can't see any issues with them arising.

  • By dual-licensing, we can let users choose the license that motivates them the most:

    • Larger projects may want something a little more protective like the Apache license, since it provides some protections for patents.
    • Smaller/more freedom-oriented projects may prefer MIT simply because it's one of the most permissive out there.

@ricochet1k: Thoughts? :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants