Licence clarification

[untereiner]

Which licence will be used ? Same as from the origin repository of the files (LGPL-2.1 license) ?

[untereiner]

I also would recommend to add SPDX annotations to the files.

[untereiner]

@cssherman, @herve-gross, @rrsettgast any thoughts ?

[cssherman]

For other stand-alone python packages, I've been happy with MIT. We would just need to do a scan to make sure that we aren't shipping any GPL dependencies in the current packages for that to work.

[untereiner]

I have seen rust project using dual licensing apache2 and MIT. The rationale is (see):

Requiring both MIT and Apache 2.0 as inbound licenses for contributions means that anyone making a contribution is providing the Apache 2.0 patent grant. And then having MIT and Apache 2.0 as outbound licenses people can use Rust under means that Rust provides widespread compatibility with all sorts of other FOSS licenses, including GPLv2.

to shorten it, it means that apache 2.0 is compatible with GPLv3 and MIT is compatible with GPLv2. So everyone gets happy.