Relicense under dual MIT/Apache-2.0

[emberian]

Why?

The MIT license requires reproducing countless copies of the same copyright
header with different names in the copyright field, for every MIT library in
use. The Apache license does not have this drawback, and has protections from
patent trolls and an explicit contribution licensing clause. However, the
Apache license is incompatible with GPLv2. This is why Rust is dual-licensed as
MIT/Apache (the "primary" license being Apache, MIT only for GPLv2 compat), and
doing so would be wise for this project. This also makes this crate suitable
for inclusion in the Rust standard distribution and other project using dual
MIT/Apache.

How?

To do this, get explicit approval from each contributor of copyrightable work
(as not all contributions qualify for copyright) and then add the following to
your README:

## License

Licensed under either of
 * Apache License, Version 2.0 ([LICENSE-APACHE](LICENSE-APACHE) or http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
 * MIT license ([LICENSE-MIT](LICENSE-MIT) or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)
at your option.

### Contribution

Unless you explicitly state otherwise, any contribution intentionally submitted
for inclusion in the work by you shall be dual licensed as above, without any
additional terms or conditions.

and in your license headers, use the following boilerplate (based on that used in Rust):

// Copyright (c) 2015 t developers
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0
// <LICENSE-APACHE or
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> or the MIT
// license <LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>,
// at your option. All files in the project carrying such
// notice may not be copied, modified, or distributed except
// according to those terms.

And don't forget to update the license metadata in your Cargo.toml!

Contributor checkoff

• @blabaere
• @thehydroimpulse
• @glycerine
• @dcbishop
• @Ryman
• @lawlerd
• @GGist
• @polyfractal
• @danburkert
• @bfops
• @musitdev
• @mystal
• @pwoolcoc

[danburkert]

Fine by me.

On Friday, January 8, 2016, cmr [email protected] wrote:

Why?

The MIT license requires reproducing countless copies of the same copyright
header with different names in the copyright field, for every MIT library
in
use. The Apache license does not have this drawback, and has protections
from
patent trolls and an explicit contribution licensing clause. However, the
Apache license is incompatible with GPLv2. This is why Rust is
dual-licensed as
MIT/Apache (the "primary" license being Apache, MIT only for GPLv2
compat), and
doing so would be wise for this project. This also makes this crate
suitable
for inclusion in the Rust standard distribution and other project using
dual
MIT/Apache.
How?

To do this, get explicit approval from each contributor of copyrightable
work
(as not all contributions qualify for copyright) and then add the
following to
your README:

License

Licensed under either of

• Apache License, Version 2.0 (LICENSE-APACHE or http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0)
• MIT license (LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT)
  at your option.

Contribution

Unless you explicitly state otherwise, any contribution intentionally submitted
for inclusion in the work by you shall be dual licensed as above, without any
additional terms or conditions.

and in your license headers, use the following boilerplate (based on that
used in Rust):

// Copyright (c) 2015 t developers
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0
// <LICENSE-APACHE or
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> or the MIT
// license <LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>,
// at your option. All files in the project carrying such
// notice may not be copied, modified, or distributed except
// according to those terms.

And don't forget to update the license metadata in your Cargo.toml!
Contributor checkoff

• @blabaere https://github.com/blabaere
• @thehydroimpulse https://github.com/thehydroimpulse
• @glycerine https://github.com/glycerine
• @dcbishop https://github.com/dcbishop
• @Ryman https://github.com/Ryman
• @lawlerd https://github.com/lawlerd
• @GGist https://github.com/GGist
• @polyfractal https://github.com/polyfractal
• @danburkert https://github.com/danburkert
• @bfops https://github.com/bfops
• @musitdev https://github.com/musitdev
• @mystal https://github.com/mystal
• @pwoolcoc https://github.com/pwoolcoc

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#141.

[polyfractal]

++ Fine with me as well.

[mystal]

👍 Works for me.

[drawlerr]

+1 LGTM.

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:37 PM Gabriel Martinez [email protected]
wrote:

[image: 👍] Works for me.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#141 (comment)
.

[blabaere]

OK with that.

[blabaere]

@cmr Is the LICENSE still required if the provided text is included in the README file ?
Is it OK to put that text in the LICENSE file instead of the README ?

[erickt]

r+

[emberian]

@blabaere No, I think that's fine too.

[dcbishop]

Sure, go for it.

[Ryman]

Fine with me :)

[GGist]

👍 Sounds good to me.

[bfops]

Sounds good!

[musitdev]

Ok for me

[pwoolcoc]

👍 sounds good to me