One reason to stay with MIT License is that it has been in wide use for some time. The UPL is newer, and in these matters, there is quite a bit of import in subtle wording; experience clarifies.
If you, or someone else wants to make the UPL rights available, just say e.g. (I am not a lawyer) "You may choose to use this material either under the MIT License or under the Universal Permissive License" On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 5:50:42 AM UTC-5, Páll Haraldsson wrote: > > > First a question in the current [main] license: > > A. Is there some reason the MIT [Expat] license was used (other than maybe > just the default for MIT people)? > > > B. If it is just to be short and uncomplicated, the Universal Permissive > License, I've just become aware of, also seems to fit the bill: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#UPL > > > The FSF just added it to their list in September: > > > https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/universal-permissive-license-added-to-license-list > "we still recommend using Apache 2.0 for simple programs".. > > > It is also OSI compliant: > > http://opensource.org/licenses/UPL > > > I've seen languages use MPL [2.0], a long license, without problems > (expect the length..). If I recall Apache 2.0 has also been used, also > long, and while the FSF says ok, note they say only compatible with GPL v3, > not v2. > > > C. Some projects have a PATENT grant file, I'm not aware of any patents, > and I assume there are no submarine patents.. Maybe we would want the UPL > to make it explicit? Dual license with MIT? > > -- > Palli. > >
