License for this package?

[wking]

I'd like to transition from / to AND or OR in our own Cargo.toml (compare rust-lang/cargo#4920). My guess is that the intended license is MIT OR Apache-2.0 (i.e. “consumers may choose either the MIT terms or the Apache-2.0 terms, at their option”) and not MIT AND Apache-2.0 (i.e. “consumers must satisfy both the MIT terms and the Apache-2.0 terms”). MIT AND Apache-2.0 would seem like a pretty strange choice…

@withoutboats, can you weigh in? What license expression did you intend?

@breard-r, @ltratt, and @nodakai, you also have commits in master. Did you have license intentions for those contributions? Or are you comfortable with whichever of the above @withoutboats intended?

[withoutboats]

It was intended to be licensed however crates.io is licensed (since that was the original use case). AFAIK that is OR.

[wking]

It was intended to be licensed however crates.io is licensed (since that was the original use case). AFAIK that is OR.

OR is my guess too, but I've filed rust-lang/crates.io#1225 to get some clarity on it.

[breard-r]

According to the SPDX Specification, appendix IV, the correct term in this case is OR:

Often a single license can be used to represent the licensing terms of a source code or binary file, but there are situations where a single license identifier is not sufficient. A common example is when software is offered under a choice of one or more licenses (e.g., GPL-2.0 OR BSD-3-Clause). Another example is when a set of licenses is needed to represent a binary program constructed by compiling and linking two (or more) different source files each governed by different licenses (e.g., LGPL-2.1 AND BSD-3-Clause).

[wking]

According to the SPDX Specification, appendix IV, the correct term in this case is OR…

I agree that that matches rust-lang/rust's usage. It's less clear to me that all the contributors here intended the OR semantics for their contributions. Since there aren't many contributors here (and they're all still alive, or at least have pushed recent commits to GitHub ;), it seems safest to just ask them all about their intentions. So far, we have @withoutboats following crates.io (where at least one contributor intended OR) and you intending OR. That leaves @ltratt and @nodakai as the only contributors who haven't chimed in with their intentions.

[ltratt]

I'm happy with the proposed change.

[wking]

Crates.io is now officially OR with rust-lang/crates.io#1226. So everything is squared away for OR except a coment from @nodakai about his intentions for #8. And that's small enough that I'm willing to claim it uncopyrightable and move ahead with OR even without feedback.

[nodakai]

@wking Sorry I'm on a trip to Vietnam countryside

I'd be happy to see the change. Please accept this as my agreement that my (tiny) PRs follow the proposed re-licensing