Support MIT license if possible

[jasperblues]

Typhoon was released under Apache2 as my research indicated that it was a more modern (in legal terms) version of the permissive MIT and BSD licenses.

Folks have been asking if we can release under MIT. This seems fine to me, given that Typhoon is non-profit and has no commercial aims beyond providing the most best and most well-supported DI (and related) frameworks for Objective-C.

Need to check, however that:

• This works for the majority of users.
• We're legally allowed to do this, given the initial Apache2 license.

[drodriguez]

I’m not against trying to change the license (as far is not GPL), but who’s is having problems with the current Apache 2 and why? As far as I know Apache 2 is a little bit better redacted version of MIT/X11/BSD style licenses (and an extra patent grant clause), and besides not being able to be used with GPL licensed code (and who uses such combination these days in Mac/iOS-land?), Apache 2 gives you a lot of freedom to use the source code almost any way you want in both commercial and open source projects.

From other open source projects I have been part, when they switch licenses, you basically have to contact every contributor and make they give you explicit permission to re-license their work with the other license (I have seen Google Spreadsheet forms used for this). A little bit of work, if you ask me, with little “return on investment”.

Anyway, IANAL.

[jasperblues]

It was @steipete , there was a recent discussion on Twitter

[jasperblues]

I think it had to do with attribution? @steipete could you please fill us in?

[jasperblues]

Closing this for now. @steipete, please feel free to comment if you'd like to pursue this issue.