Discussion: Switch to MIT license

[timwis]

Helpful suggestion from @jangondol

Well, in that case you may want to stick with MIT. Attribution is only required in the source code (as long as the users don't delete the license file or swap your name for theirs they're fine), which is very reasonable. Also, some companies tend to avoid GPL (which you're currently using) because it's "viral" (you're legally required to release source code and the moment you combine your own code with GPL codebase the entire combined thing is now GPL -- pardon the simplification -- so you see why some people would avoid that).

So if you want to be permissive and don't want to require attribution, MIT is a good option, unless you want to consider things like CC Zero, which are a bit over the top IMO (I only use this for content where I want to waive my rights to the maximum extent possible under law): https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

I'm fine with switching to MIT. Does anyone have any thoughts before I do so?

[tomschenkjr]

Apache is a good option as well. Helps protect IP, but is permissive. I think it's notable that companies like Google licensed their "big" projects like Android as Apache.

If you do want more flexibility but reduce the chance of "license switch", Mozilla Public License is underused.

[tomschenkjr]

That said, I love MIT and tend to use that.