-
I want to add the MIT License to this repository, please assign me this issue under GSSOC'24
-
Hi,
Are you open to change this library to an MIT license?
Currently we are unable to use this library because of the GPL 2.0 license.
-
@klag some of the files you authored include a MIT license header, while the rest of the project is under the LGPL. I think we discussed something at the time, but it's a bit weird that we have two li…
-
Hey Joshua,
I came across your package and am interested in using it for my project.
I'd love it if you could adopt a permissive license such as MIT or Apache 2.0
So that I can use it without…
-
The license is not recognized by GitHub probably due to the added text. What will be a solution for this?
-
@mattfidler , @kiranmayi3595 , @RichardHooijmaijers, @kestrel99
Can you all please comment here to indicate if you agree with changing the package license to MIT?
-
TLDR: LicenseCompareHelper.matchingStandardLicenseIdsWithinText does not match the MIT license text from https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html but LicenseCompareHelper.isTextStandardLicense does.
Versio…
-
Hey,
While I appreciate the idea of the license this repository has, it makes it unfeasible to use in many projects due to it's restrictiveness and rarity. While I assume you're already aware of th…
-
## Description
The Eclipse SDV Blueprints project is licensed under Apache 2.0 (https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/automotive.sdv-blueprints). Therefore, this software-orchestration repository use…
-
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](h…