The osipy package is licensed under an MIT license. When osipi was founded we discussed licensing extensively and it was decided to use Apache 2.0 consistently across alll osipi software outputs. Is there a good reason for the change to MIT?
It's generally good to stick to just one licensing strategy, rather than mix. The concrete implication is that when you incorporate functionality that is licensed under another license, you must respect the terms and conditions of the original license. Concretely, since you have adapted material from an Apache 2.0 licensed package (dcmri.org, but perhaps others if you take material from other osipi resources) you need to retain the original license, which you are currently not doing. So you are now technically in breech of the licensing conditions.
The reason osipi chose Apache 2.0 (as apposed to an older license like MIT) is because this makes it safer for companies to use. The Apache licence (unlike MIT) contains a patent clause, which means that you are free to redistribute / modify / use the code even if the original (or some part of it) is protected by a patent. This means companies (and others) that use an Apache 2.0 package, or modify it, or redistribute it, do not have to worry abour breaching possible patents. I understand companies often will not touch MIT licensed code for this reason - in order to do so safely they would have to scrutinse all the detail and check for possible patent protections.
The osipy package is licensed under an MIT license. When osipi was founded we discussed licensing extensively and it was decided to use Apache 2.0 consistently across alll osipi software outputs. Is there a good reason for the change to MIT?
It's generally good to stick to just one licensing strategy, rather than mix. The concrete implication is that when you incorporate functionality that is licensed under another license, you must respect the terms and conditions of the original license. Concretely, since you have adapted material from an Apache 2.0 licensed package (dcmri.org, but perhaps others if you take material from other osipi resources) you need to retain the original license, which you are currently not doing. So you are now technically in breech of the licensing conditions.
The reason osipi chose Apache 2.0 (as apposed to an older license like MIT) is because this makes it safer for companies to use. The Apache licence (unlike MIT) contains a patent clause, which means that you are free to redistribute / modify / use the code even if the original (or some part of it) is protected by a patent. This means companies (and others) that use an Apache 2.0 package, or modify it, or redistribute it, do not have to worry abour breaching possible patents. I understand companies often will not touch MIT licensed code for this reason - in order to do so safely they would have to scrutinse all the detail and check for possible patent protections.