Consider migrating away from BSD+Patents license

[ilbmiller]

Facebook has abandoned the BSD+Patents licensing approach for React due to Open Source push back (they are moving React to MIT License). See https://code.facebook.com/posts/300798627056246/relicensing-react-jest-flow-and-immutable-js/

@blueprintjs has the same licensing approach (BSD+Patents). Unfortunately, my company's legal department is uncomfortable with the BSD+Patents approach (and I'm not legally qualified to debate the merits). This is sad as @blueprintjs is a very nice product!

So this issue is simply a request for @blueprintjs to consider migrating to using a MIT License (or Apache 2.0). I believe this would help @blueprintjs grow their user base.

Thanks for your consideration!

[llorca]

Our legal department is currently evaluating alternative licenses for Blueprint. Watch this issue for updates in the near-ish future.

[vilav]

+1 Exact thoughts and concerns as @ilbmiller

[chenfanggm]

I was evaluate UI Component Lib for my company today. And I was so exited to find Blueprint until I see the LICENSE. Please seriously consider change it to MIT, so more and more company can join and contribute to this project. Especially that Blueprint's look and feel is more likely a tool like theme. Most user would come from the company wise. However, now I have to give it up. Please again ask the legal department, and hopefully I could propose it before my evaluation ends.
Thanks for all your hardworking.

Best,
Chen

[adidahiya]

We're now on Apache 2.0. The next releases (core 1.33.0, table 1.30.0, datetime 1.24.0, labs 0.13.0) will include this license.

[magdmartin]

Should we reopen since we are waiting for more feedback from Palantir legal? See #1751#issuecomment-346198034

[llorca]

Nope. We already migrated to Apache 2.0

[pombredanne]

This is not an Apache 2.0 license, but something that looks like one and is IMHO misleading. Please see #2602