oration Licencing complications

Seems that most elm packages/projects are released under BSD 2 or 3, which is somewhat similar to MIT with subtle differences.

Then, most rust projects are released under MIT/Apache so users can choose.

This discussion indicates that maybe dual licencing BSD/MIT is OK, and depending on the clause count of the BSD licence, work can be redistributed under MIT.

So to be safe does this mean a BSD/MIT/Apache scheme is all encompassing? That makes no sense to me though, as that now just get confusing where requirements sit.

Oct 07 '17 16:10 Libbum

Moving this to the v0.3 milestone, since that's the planned public release. I doubt there will be much outside interest to answer this issue until that time.

Dec 05 '17 13:12 Libbum

FOSSA integration #94 has identified 4 licence issues directly. This can help us navigate some of the problem a little better. However, Elm packages are not scanned under FOSSA, so the BSD question is still open & in this sense we've just added previously unknown issues to the pile...

Edit: The four issues were just incorrect parsing. So for the Rust side, we're looking solid.

Aug 16 '18 10:08 Libbum