Closed thombruce closed 1 year ago
The main difference between MIT and Apache 2.0 is a patent clause, I believe... which I don't think is strictly necessary for this project; certainly not at the present stage (none of the work is patented).
The BSD 2 and MIT are roughly equivalent.
The BSD 3 prevents someone from claiming false endorsement (e.g. "My derivative project is endorsed by Thom Bruce, creator of Verse"). While that "e.g." is a crude and inaccurate example, you get the gist: It effectively discourages claiming that a derivative work is endorsed by the licensor (me) of the original source. And I don't think this is strictly necessary either.
The simplest approach is the Commons Clause amended MIT license, and I think that's the way I'll go with this.
Relicensed under MIT + Commons Clause as of 36e097beb66286f6dd8a3df99cbc666a2179681f
I have become aware of a clause in the GPLv3 license which permits end users to ignore and remove the Commons Clause:
For this project, I believe the Commons Clause is an important protection so would like to reconsider licensing options...
We will probably switch to one of: