We considered different package licenses and agreed that the MIT license is the most appropriate for both Python and R versions of the snapedautility package. There are a few reasons why the MIT license was selected.
First and most importantly, we want to ensure that the package can be used, distributed, and published. In short, we promote this package to be open-source. The purpose of this package is not to generate profits, but its purpose is solely to help the users to make efficient use of their time when conducting exploratory data analysis.
Second, we want to allow users to extend this package in a larger software. Under the MIT license, users can copy and modify this package to make it appropriate for their use cases. Users are also allowed to sell their products even after using or extending the snapedautility package.
Third, including the MIT license ensures that we are free from legal matters. As we aren't looking to generate profit off this package, we want to avoid being liable for any consequences that might come with potential errors. Under the MIT license, we should be protected from being legally responsible for any problems that users' software may encounter.
Although there are other similar licenses such as "Boost Software License 1.0" and "Apache License 2.0", these licenses have some constraints that may restrict users from using this package at its full potential. For example, the Apache license offers the same permissions as the MIT license except for one circumstance. The Apache license requires developers to disclose any major changes made to the source code, whereas the MIT license does not require any disclosures.
Since the MIT license is the most unrestricted license that protects us from legal matters, we believe that the MIT license is the most suitable license for the snapedautility package.
dol23asuka
commented
2 years ago
MIT License
We considered different package licenses and agreed that the MIT license is the most appropriate for both Python and R versions of the snapedautility package. There are a few reasons why the MIT license was selected.
First and most importantly, we want to ensure that the package can be used, distributed, and published. In short, we promote this package to be open-source. The purpose of this package is not to generate profits, but its purpose is solely to help the users to make efficient use of their time when conducting exploratory data analysis.
Second, we want to allow users to extend this package in a larger software. Under the MIT license, users can copy and modify this package to make it appropriate for their use cases. Users are also allowed to sell their products even after using or extending the snapedautility package.
Third, including the MIT license ensures that we are free from legal matters. As we aren't looking to generate profit off this package, we want to avoid being liable for any consequences that might come with potential errors. Under the MIT license, we should be protected from being legally responsible for any problems that users' software may encounter.
Although there are other similar licenses such as "Boost Software License 1.0" and "Apache License 2.0", these licenses have some constraints that may restrict users from using this package at its full potential. For example, the Apache license offers the same permissions as the MIT license except for one circumstance. The Apache license requires developers to disclose any major changes made to the source code, whereas the MIT license does not require any disclosures.
Since the MIT license is the most unrestricted license that protects us from legal matters, we believe that the MIT license is the most suitable license for the snapedautility package.
Reference: https://choosealicense.com/licenses/