License - BSD-3-Clause-Clear

Kevin

Do we want to be strict on MIT license only, or can we accept other licenses? Specifically, BSD-3-Clause-Clear? I am working on a MediaTek WiFi driver which uses code from Linux mt76 under BSD-3-Clause-Clear. I don't see any glaring incompatibilities between the two licenses. The driver uses BSD-3-Clause-Clear at the request of MediaTek because it prevents us from patenting the code, which we weren't going to do anyways.

dcbeckman

AFAIAC they are basically the same license. I had to choose BSD over GPL on one project I was working on. Weird that they give you a choice. LOL. But one thing I did to separate BSD code from MIT code was to put the project under the 3rd party folder. It servers as a wall between my MIT code and code that falls under other licenses. If we wanted to diverge from Haiku's way a bit, instead of 3rd party we could have separate gpl, bsd3, etc folders to house code under different licenses.

Kevin

They seem pretty much the same to me too, so I don't personally have any objections to mixing in BSD code with MIT. But I'd like feedback from others 🙂

I am also willing to consider accepting GPL code, but that may be more controversial. If I remember correctly, the reason OpenBeOS/Haiku originally wanted a MIT codebase is because it didn't require derivative work to be open-sourced, and the team had hoped some corporation would step in an continue BeOS and leverage some of the OpenBeOS code. At this point I think it's unlikely there will ever be another major commercial OS so it seems like a moot point.

dcbeckman

Kevin I personally like MIT and BSD over GPL, just because it is easier to keep track of and is less responsibility for me.

clasqm

Kevin We have also seen people building huge corporations on gpl code (Redhat, Canonical), which makes the point moot from both sides!

Shaka444

Whatever license(s) gives us the best code without tying our hands is fine by me.