Consider changing license from GPLv3 to MIT?

[kevinswiber]

GPL makes some folks slightly uncomfortable for a number of reasons. MIT and Apache2 are more common in the Node community.

A coworker just considered forking the project for use in other software. The GPL license could be a blocker for us down the road.

Would you consider a change?

Thanks!

[brennen]

My personal gut reaction is that I favor an ecosystem with strong copyleft on at least a plurality of open code projects, but we'll have a conversation about this.

[kevinswiber]

@brennen Thanks. I'm happy to see this project released as open source, regardless of license choice. For my team (I work in the Labs division of my company), nearly all of our work is contributed to the open source community. However, as is the nature of a Labs team, some of what we do will make its way into our commercial products. GPL occasionally leads to hissing noises.

As we're not doing anything with phant at the moment, it's not a currently pressing issue. Just noticed the license and thought I'd throw out the question.

Thanks again for your consideration!

[brennen]

Sure thing - we've been hashing this out a bit internally, and I think we're pretty likely to stay with the GPL for the time being, but we do appreciate that this can be a sticking point for some users. We'll keep thinking about it.

[kevinswiber]

No problem. Thanks again!