Consider Apache dual license for Dojo 2

[dylans]

The JS Foundation has a default policy of using the Apache 2 license, though existing projects may retain their existing license.

We had not previously considered supporting this in addition to our current BSD 3 clause support, but we received a request last week to consider also supporting the Apache license as some orgs have an Apache only policy for projects they may use as it is apparently more explicit around patent rights.

[dylans]

If we're going to do this, we should do it before beta. I've only heard of one organization (SAP) recently that insists on Apache license.

[kitsonk]

There is now a major issue with BSD-3-Clause + Patents. While BSD-3-Clause is not incompatible with Apache it is clear the industry and commercial entities is liking the Apache license over other OSI licenses.

I say we should dual license, but am adding to a list of items to resolve fully.

[kitsonk]

During the design meeting on the 03 August 2017, it was agreed that we would dual license Dojo 2 as BSD 3 Clause and Apache 2.0.

[kitsonk]

We need to convert all the repos over to being dual licensed:

• dojo/cli
• dojo/cli-build
• dojo/cli-create-app
• dojo/cli-create-widget
• dojo/cli-export-project
• dojo/cli-test-intern
• dojo/core
• dojo/dgrid
• dojo/examples
• dojo/has
• dojo/i18n
• dojo/interfaces
• dojo/interop
• dojo/loader
• dojo/routing
• dojo/shim
• dojo/static-optimize-plugin
• dojo/stores
• dojo/streams
• dojo/widget-core
• dojo/widgets
• dojo/dojo2-package-template
• dojo/grunt-dojo2
• dojo/grunt-dojo2-extras
• dojo/test-extras
• dojo/web-editor
• dojo/webpack-contrib

[agubler]

@dylans do we still need to do this? Or has it been completed?

[dylans]

I believe we should still do it. I had mentioned it to the JS Foundation and they were going to let me know if they saw any issues with this. I'll check back in with them.