Zebra: Missing a LICENSE file

[bobsummerwill]

Is this codebase a continuation of https://github.com/bobsummerwill/parity-zcash or a fresh codebase?

What is the LICENSE, please? Thank you!

[hdevalence]

Hi there, this is a fresh codebase rather than a continuation of parity-zcash. The code is dual-licensed as Apache2 or MIT, and the license metadata is in the individual Cargo.toml files but as you note we are missing a LICENSE file. I will leave this issue open until we add it.

[bobsummerwill]

Thanks, @dconnolly.

Aside - what is the rationale for dual MIT/Apache licensing?

The MIT license is weaker than Apache 2.0, with no patent protection.

Is there a specific reason why you did not use ONLY Apache 2.0? Thanks.

[hdevalence]

Apache2 or MIT is a standard licensing choice in the Rust ecosystem (e.g., it is the license for Rust itself), and in particular it means that the code is GPLv2-compatible. See https://doc.rust-lang.org/1.5.0/complement-project-faq.html#why-dual-mitasl2-license or https://github.com/sfackler/rust-postgres-macros/issues/19 for some more details.

[bobsummerwill]

Right - thanks.

And so because you have the Apache 2.0 licence, that is giving you the patent protection?

And the MIT license option is giving you compatibility with GPLv2, as well as the GPLv3 compatibility you get from Apache 2.0?

[bobsummerwill]

https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/rationale-of-apache-dual-licensing/8952/5

graydon says: Yeah, just to echo josh here: the MIT is almost a subset of ASL2 but not quite: GPLv2 compatibility is the one weird case that we needed to retain the nearly-redundant MIT for. Otherwise we’d just have gone ASL2.

SO NOW I KNOW :-)

[hdevalence]

Yep :)