Repository navigation
Licensing: recorded strategy, declared licenses, no premature split - #12
Merged
Merged
Conversation
The repo was dual MIT/Apache-2.0 in its license files, but no crate manifest declared a license at all. Now every crate inherits license = "MIT OR Apache-2.0" via the workspace. docs/LICENSE-STRATEGY.md records the decision and its reasoning: - a component split (permissive guest SDK/verifier vs copyleft-able network core) requires artifact boundaries that do not exist yet — the 'guest SDK' is scaffold templates, the verifier a standalone binary; file-level licensing would add seams with no technical boundary to justify them; - the network core stays permissive (AGPL declined): the stack sits on Apache-licensed SP1, enterprise/government evaluation blocks AGPL, the moat is measured engineering plus SBIR data rights, and the revisit trigger (a hosted service + observed unhosted forks, while copyright is still single-owner) is written down; - scaffolded job code imposes nothing on the user's program license; - SBIR IP interaction flagged for counsel + agency IP officer review before a proposal, not after — not legal advice.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
A component-based license split was proposed (permissive guest SDK/verifier, copyleft-optional network core). This PR records the licensing decision honestly rather than shipping a split with nothing to split:
license = "MIT OR Apache-2.0"— previously undeclared, so consumers saw no license at all.docs/LICENSE-STRATEGY.mdrecords the analysis: the proposed split has no artifact boundary to attach to (the 'guest SDK' is scaffold templates; the verifier is a standalone binary), the network core stays permissive with the AGPL-decline reasoning and a written revisit trigger (hosted service + observed unhosted forks, while copyright is single-owner — after which a CLA is required for any relicense), and the SBIR IP interaction is flagged for counsel before a proposal (explicitly not legal advice).No license text changed; the operative grant remains MIT OR Apache-2.0 for the whole tree.