3 ms·
If they aim to make it simpler, why have two variants of the license? Is there any functional difference between apache and MIT?
by Aeolun 3y ago
If they aim to make it simpler, why have two variants of the license?
Is there any functional difference between apache and MIT?
- bentlegen 3y agoFWIW it is simpler because BUSL source can change to any license (including copyleft), whereas FSL can only change into MIT or Apache 2.0. So it goes from N possibilities to 2. > Is there any functional difference between apache and MIT? Apache 2.0 has an explicit patents clause, whereas MIT does not. Better explanation here: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/apache-2-patent-license https://opensource.com/article/18/2/apache-2-patent-license
- janosdebugs 3y agoTo add to the sibling comment, the Apache license requires you to carry along the NOTICE file, whereas MIT does not. This is often overlooked.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- the_mitsuhiko 3y ago> Is there any functional difference between apache and MIT? We only use FSL to Apache 2 so we would have been happy with just having this. However the issue of lack of GPL 2 compatibility of Apache 2 is known to us so having a GPL 2 compatible option with the MIT license we believe makes sense. In practical terms if you want to adopt FSL from scratch and you have no GPL 2 concerns, Apache 2 is most likely the better choice as it also carries a patent clause.