MIT/BSD License

[subtleGradient]

I think dual-licensing the project as LGPL / MIT or BSD would allow more developers to use it.
I just spoke with Greg Badros and he's open to using another license.

[slightlyoff]

I'm absolutely for Apache or BSD. We'll need someone to own the rights. Lets move this to the overconstrained mailing list.

On Apr 3, 2012, at 5:37 PM, Thomas Aylott wrote:

I think dual-licensing the project as LGPL / MIT or BSD would allow more developers to use it.
I just spoke with Greg Badros and he's open to using another license.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#5

[subtleGradient]

Where is that?

On Apr 3, 2012, at 9:50 AM, Alex Russellreply@reply.github.com wrote:

overconstrained mailing list

[slightlyoff]

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/overconstrained

On Apr 6, 2012, at 3:15 PM, Thomas Aylott wrote:

Where is that?

On Apr 3, 2012, at 9:50 AM, Alex Russellreply@reply.github.com wrote:

overconstrained mailing list

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#5 (comment)

[davglass]

The license was changed to Apache in a8057dc back in Feb 2013, but the updated npm package was never published, it's still on the register as LGPL. Can you do a version release so that it's Apache licensed?

http://registry.npmjs.org/cassowary/latest