This project has moved and is read-only. For the latest updates, please go here.


Dual license via MIT



LGPL is problematic for some people.

Any objection to having a dual license? So "also release under MIT"
Closed May 14, 2014 at 1:38 AM by PandaWood
Converted to MIT (dual license wasn't possible)


PandaWood wrote Mar 24, 2014 at 5:13 AM

Yep, no worries.
Actually, I couldn't do "dual license" so I chose MIT and put my and the originator's name ("Phillip Pettit") on the copyright. With the year that he handed it over to me as the copyright date.
Probably arbitrary really.

SimonCropp wrote May 14, 2014 at 2:24 AM

Thanks. MIT is a better license anyway :)