Obviously up to you, but it would be really nice if this library were licensed more permissively.
I typically go MIT for libraries because attribution is required still, but no patent rights are granted. (A)GPL gets a bit messy if you end up using the code in the wrong way, and could cause a lot of potential users to decide not to use it.
I've been in a lot of Enterprises where there isn't even a location for displaying the code you're using somewhere (either internally or externally). That's a blocker to using anything requiring the disclosing of source, because the users (whatever the definition, depending on license) have to know where to get it. Huge showstopper for a lot of devs that don't get as much freedom as we do.
The flip side is that it's easier for someone to close source a product based on your's. But then again, that's also a higher adoption rate for the library, so double edged sword really.
Anyways let me know if you have questions. I typically use this site as a high level reference.
Obviously up to you, but it would be really nice if this library were licensed more permissively.
I typically go MIT for libraries because attribution is required still, but no patent rights are granted. (A)GPL gets a bit messy if you end up using the code in the wrong way, and could cause a lot of potential users to decide not to use it.
I've been in a lot of Enterprises where there isn't even a location for displaying the code you're using somewhere (either internally or externally). That's a blocker to using anything requiring the disclosing of source, because the users (whatever the definition, depending on license) have to know where to get it. Huge showstopper for a lot of devs that don't get as much freedom as we do.
The flip side is that it's easier for someone to close source a product based on your's. But then again, that's also a higher adoption rate for the library, so double edged sword really.
Anyways let me know if you have questions. I typically use this site as a high level reference.