BSD or MIT

[ignatenkobrain]

Hello, Cargo.toml lists BSD OR MIT, however LICENSE file contains only info about BSD... Who is right?

[danielrh]

I suppose the license file is right... I can adjust the Cargo.toml
both licenses are sufficiently permissive that they are quite compatible.

[decathorpe]

Looks like this issue is still unresolved as of today?

[nyurik]

Most Rust projects prefer to use Apache OR MIT approach because MIT is not very compatible with GPL (if my memory is serving me right), and so having two clause approach allows users to use code everywhere more freely.

[decathorpe]

Then the license text for MIT should probably be added to this repo too?

The current license file (https://github.com/dropbox/rust-brotli/blob/master/LICENSE) file only contains the BSD-3-Clause license text, but the MIT license requires that license text is included with redistributed sources.

Usually dual-licensed crates handle this by having two separate license files (i.e. LICENSE-Apache and LICENSE-MIT, in most cases).

MIT is not very compatible with GPL

As far as I know, the problem wrt/ GPL compatibility is actually caused by the Apache-2.0 license, not the MIT license.

[danielrh]

Hmmm should probably copy the license from https://github.com/google/brotli/blob/master/LICENSE