Relicense as dual Apache-2.0 + MIT #666
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This changes the LICENSE file and adds license headers to most files to relicense under dual Apache-2.0 and MIT. This is helpful in that we retain the patent grant issued under Apache-2.0-licensed work, avoiding some sticky patent issues, while still allowing users who are more comfortable with the simpler MIT license to use that. See lightningdevkit#659 for relicensing statements from code authors.
TheBlueMatt
force-pushed
the
2020-08-license-change
branch
from
544d2e5 to
4395b92
Compare
TheBlueMatt
commented
Aug 11, 2020
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This changes the LICENSE file and adds license headers to most files
to relicense under dual Apache-2.0 and MIT. This is helpful in that
we retain the patent grant issued under Apache-2.0-licensed work,
avoiding some sticky patent issues, while still allowing users who
are more comfortable with the simpler MIT license to use that.
See #659 for
relicensing statements from code authors.
May have missed a few files, but LICENSE.md is pretty clear that that doesn't matter.
Just want confirmation from @joemphilips before merge.