Relicense under dual MIT/Apache-2.0 about chan HOT 8 CLOSED

@cmr This crate is already dual licensed under MIT and the UNLICENSE. Is there any particular reason why the UNLICENSE is not suitable for your purposes? (Similarly for BurntSushi/tabwriter#5, and all my crates.)

from chan.

@BurntSushi oops, my script was a little indescriminate about hitting MIT dual-licensed with other things.

I would prefer CC0 to the UNLICENSE though, I'm not sure UNLICENSE'd components would be able to be included in the standard distribution, and I won't include UNLICENSE or CC0'd components in Robigalia (which is a shame, because I'd like to use this for our channels atm)

from chan.

and I won't include UNLICENSE components in Robigalia

It's dual licensed. You can elect to use chan under the terms of the MIT license.

from chan.

The runtime (currently unreleased), "phoma", is licensed the same as the Rust standard library, MIT/Apache-2.0, and I won't include components which are not availble under either the MIT or Apache-2.0 at the licensees choice, or licenses with Apache-2.0 compatible terms that don't require redistributing a license document (for example, the CC0 is not compatible here) at users option. The patent license Apache-2.0 grants is not included with the MIT license (which is primarily why MIT is GPLv2 compatible and Apache-2.0 is not).

from chan.

But chan is available under the MIT license, so I sincerely do not understand your objection. You can elect to use chan under the terms of either the MIT or UNLICENSE licenses.

from chan.

Ignoring the UNLICENSE, I can't then say to my users, "You can use phoma under the terms of either the MIT or Apache-2.0 licenses" if it included chan, since they cannot use chan under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license (since the MIT license does not include the patent grant). It would effectively make phoma MIT-only. Copyright isn't the only issue here, patent law comes into play as well.

from chan.

OK, so I think what you're saying is that all libraries you use must be MIT/Apache-2.0, or alternatively, MIT/X where X has Apache-2.0 compatible terms? Is my understanding correct? And you're also claiming that the CC0 is suitable as X but the UNLICENSE is not. Could you explain why that is? (Or, if it's complicated, a link to someone else explaining it would be fine!)

from chan.

Sorry, I had a misunderstanding and have since edited the comments to note that CC0 is not suitable as X.

It's not MIT/X, really, it's X where X is compatible with both the MIT and Apache-2.0. For example, the 2-clause BSD license would suffice for the "MIT" compatability.

I immediately regret using the word "compatible" though, as it's not quite precise here - the MIT is compatible with the Apache-2.0 license, in that you can freely combine two works that are MIT licensed and Apache-2.0 licensed. What I cannot do, though, is say to my users "If you use phoma, choose either MIT or Apache-2.0, and if you chose Apache-2.0 you only need to distribute a single copy of the Apache-2.0 license with the binary form", and instead need to have a file like https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/COPYRIGHT that needs to be redistributed listing all the MIT, BSD, etc copyright notices.

It's minor, and I'm not entirely convinced that I want to stick to my guns on this one, but it certainly seems nice to me.

from chan.