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.
