Hi contributors @rubas @pxp9 @ayrat555 @Wigny @brewerx @mkompanets
I'm considering switching this library's license from Apache-2.0 to MIT.
The motivation is to reduce friction for users and companies adopting or forking the library. For a small UI/component library, MIT seems to be a better fit and aligns with similar projects.
Because this repository already has external contributors, I want to do this properly,
If you’re OK with relicensing your past contributions under the MIT license, please reply with a 👍 or a short "approved" comment.
If you're not comfortable with this, no worries at all, just say here in the comments.
If I don't hear back from everyone, I'll keep the existing Apache-2.0 license for the affected code or rewrite the missing parts.
What does this mean for you?
- You keep full copyright over your past contributions
- Your code will simply be available under the MIT license instead of Apache-2.0
- This makes it easier for others to use, fork, and embed the library
- There is no impact on how you are credited as a contributor
Thanks a lot for contributing to the project 🙏
Hi contributors @rubas @pxp9 @ayrat555 @Wigny @brewerx @mkompanets
I'm considering switching this library's license from Apache-2.0 to MIT.
The motivation is to reduce friction for users and companies adopting or forking the library. For a small UI/component library, MIT seems to be a better fit and aligns with similar projects.
Because this repository already has external contributors, I want to do this properly,
If you’re OK with relicensing your past contributions under the MIT license, please reply with a 👍 or a short "approved" comment.
If you're not comfortable with this, no worries at all, just say here in the comments.
If I don't hear back from everyone, I'll keep the existing Apache-2.0 license for the affected code or rewrite the missing parts.
What does this mean for you?
Thanks a lot for contributing to the project 🙏