Add license file

[rpgoldman]

I plan to add a permissive license file, MIT, BSD, LGPL, or something like that. Open to suggestions or requests to avoid.

[jakebeal]

LGPL is not permissive, as it has not been adequately maintained in the face of changes in how software is deployed.

I recommend going with MIT, BSD, or Apache.

[rpgoldman]

My colleagues suggest Apache over MIT. Doing a little research I see this:

The Apache License. The Apache license has a similar philosophy to the MIT, but uses more words. The wordiness creates greater specificity about contributors’ obligations, which might help in a dispute. But it also can be a turnoff — “Do I need to have my lawyer look at this?” comes up more with Apache than MIT. It works well for organizations or projects that are larger and managing more contributors, but don’t care about others commercializing the work. It also can help bring on board organizations that are more concerned about software patents or patent trolls.

from http://old.exygy.com/which-license-should-i-use-mit-vs-apache-vs-gpl/

Elsewhere I see this:

However, Apache 2.0 gives you both a copyright AND a patent license. MIT gives you only a copyright license.

For Apache, you have to carry the license with you whenever you distribute it, and modified files must also have prominent notices that the files have been changed, and third, giving proper credit to the authors, and they include not just copyright, but patent and trademarks. In addition, Apache 2.0 also gives you a patent license.

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-Apache-v2-0-and-MIT-license-What-are-the-major-consequences-of-using-Apache-software-over-MIT/answer/Ekaterina-Valinakova-2

Given the prevalence of patents in the biomedical space, maybe this is a good thing to have?

[jakebeal]

Since we aren't planning to patent the container ontology, I don't think that matters here. I have no strong opinion between the options.

[rpgoldman]

There's some discussion in that second reference about this keeping other patent-ers from patent-suing the contributors to this library. I.e., it's intended to help protect contributors from patent trolls.

[rpgoldman]

OK, unless there's a huge pushback, I think Apache license it is.