Thoughts on licensing

[omasanori]

While I understand and respect your choice on licensing, I'd share some thoughts.

1. Choosing common licenses ease adoption by users. Some distributions need a special treatment for inclusion of uncommon licenses. Companies who use SPDX SBOM may prefer common licenses, too. MIT License with special conditions is no longer MIT License and displaying it as MIT Licensed confuses users.
2. Regarding Attribution Requirements, you can ask for attribution alongside common licenses. Software by academic institutions often ask for citaion in their README without altering license itself. How about making Attribution Requirements as separate attribution guidelines?
3. Regarding Commercial Scientific Software Company Copyleft, I understand the intention but why did you avoid common reciprocal licenses with certain exceptions, ex. MPL, LGPL, or GPL with the Classpath exception?

[nallana]

Hi @omasanori -- thanks for raising this.

As of 0.5 we've changed the license of the repo from MIT + attribution requirements to simply Apache 2.0. The off the shelf Apache 2.0 license provides what we needed, while picking a common license per your comment.

[omasanori]

Thanks for consideration!