Choosing en open-source license for Rusteomics libraries

[david-bouyssie]

I think we need to decide between Apache License 2.0 and the MIT License. We have currently endorsed the Apache one, but the question I'm wondering is if it is the best solution.

Here are some elements of comparison provided by ChatGPT:

Both the MIT License and the Apache License 2.0 are popular open-source licenses, but they have some differences in their terms and conditions. The choice between them often depends on your specific needs and the goals of your project. Here are some factors to consider when choosing between the MIT License and the Apache License 2.0:

MIT License:
• Simplicity: The MIT License is very simple and permissive. It allows users to do almost anything they want with the code, as long as they include the original copyright and license notice in any copy of the software or substantial portion of it.
• Compatibility: The MIT License is compatible with many other licenses, making it easy to incorporate MIT-licensed code into projects with different licensing schemes.
• Developer-Friendly: It's often chosen for projects where the main goal is to encourage as much adoption and collaboration as possible. It's straightforward and doesn't impose many restrictions.

Apache License 2.0:
• Patent Grant: One of the significant differences is the explicit patent grant in the Apache License 2.0. Contributors grant a patent license to anyone using, modifying, or distributing the software. This can be important in a collaborative and open-source environment where patents might become relevant.
• Attribution: The Apache License 2.0 requires contributors to be attributed in a NOTICE file or other documentation. If proper attribution and tracking of contributors are important to you, this might be a consideration.
• Defense Against Patent Lawsuits: The Apache License 2.0 includes a clause that provides some protection against patent lawsuits. If a contributor sues others for patent infringement based on their contributions, they lose the right to distribute the project under the Apache License.

General Considerations:
• Community and Ecosystem: Consider the preferences and expectations of the open-source community and ecosystems you're working in. Some communities may have a strong preference for one license over the other.
• Legal Advice: If you're uncertain about which license is best for your project, it's always a good idea to consult with legal professionals who specialize in open-source licensing.

Ultimately, both licenses are permissive and allow for extensive use and modification of the software. The choice often comes down to the specific terms you want to impose, the legal environment you're operating in, and the collaborative nature of your project.

[douweschulte]

In the Rust ecosystem it is very common to provided MIT OR Apache 2.0 as licenses, then the user of the library can choose their own on their own accord. The most downloaded crate as an example

[david-bouyssie]

Sounds quite flexible indeed. I add this possibility to the vote options.