I was going for GPL for ideological reasons but had never thought of its implication up to now. All things considered, I then thought The Unlicense would be the best option since I do not care much if my name is not mentioned if my code is used somewhere else - being the sole requirement of MIT license if I understand correctly. But legally, it seems that the Unlicense isn’t even applicable in some jurisdiction:
So, after some days reading about licenses, MIT seem to make the most sense:
- GPL-3.0 could render my code unused
- LGPL-3.0 could have the very same impact, but at a lesser extend
- MPL-2.0 / Apache-2.0 offers patent protection that I do not see a need for since I’m not inventing anything but simply implementing existing software in a new language
*** now we start with licenses that non-lawyer can understand ***
- ISC isn’t that popular in general
- BSD-2-Clause / BSD-3-Clause would both work
- MIT achieves the same as the previous understandable licenses and has the advantage of being well known
I’ll finish with satoshi’s motivation for choosing MIT for bitcoin:
https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/451/
No bother, it is indeed important - I should have maybe moved /added this discussion to this Package License thread…