Skip to content

ADR-0008: License Decision

Status: Accepted Date: 2026-06-22 Deciders: Paxman core team Supersedes: — Superseded by: —

Context and Problem Statement

Paxman's README states: "MIT (or Apache-2.0 — final TBD by the team." Sprint 0 closes this gap. The license decision blocks Sprint 1's LICENSE file creation, pyproject.toml metadata, and PyPI publishing configuration. Without a resolved license, no artifact can be published and no downstream consumer can legally integrate Paxman.

The trade-off analysis and full rationale are documented in the sibling specification at ../specs/license-decision.md.

Decision Drivers

  • Developer-focused library (PRD §6.1) — Paxman's consumers are developers integrating a library, not end users of a service.
  • Python ecosystem convention — MIT is the de facto standard for Python libraries on PyPI.
  • Minimal legal review surface — the 3-package core dependency policy (DEPENDENCIES.md §2) keeps the legal footprint tiny.
  • No patent-encumbered domain — Paxman normalizes documents; it does not operate in biotech, finance-specific, or standards-essential patent territory.
  • Downstream packaging friction — Gentoo, Debian, conda-forge all have well-established MIT workflows.

Considered Options

Option A — MIT License (chosen)

~200 lines of plain English. Permissive. No explicit patent grant. The most common license for Python libraries.

Pros:

  • Most familiar license to Python developers.
  • Simplest legal text; easy to review, embed, and reference downstream.
  • No NOTICE file maintenance burden.
  • Compatible with all permissive and copyleft dependencies when used as a library.
  • Lowest friction for downstream packagers (Gentoo, Debian, conda-forge).

Cons:

  • No explicit patent grant — contributors grant copyright but not patent rights.
  • No patent retaliation clause — nothing discourages a contributor from later asserting patents.

Option B — Apache-2.0 License

~400 lines of legal text plus an appendix. Permissive with an explicit patent grant and patent retaliation clause. Standard for data/ML, enterprise, and corporate-friendly projects.

Pros:

  • Patent grant protects users from contributor patent claims.
  • Patent retaliation clause discourages patent aggression.
  • Preferred by corporate and enterprise legal teams.

Cons:

  • NOTICE file must be maintained and distributed with all copies.
  • Longer text is harder to embed and review.
  • Patent provisions are unnecessary for Paxman's domain.
  • Slightly higher friction for downstream packagers.

Option C — Dual MIT/Apache-2.0

Offer both licenses; the user chooses which applies. Used by Rust ecosystem (rust-lang/rust).

Pros:

  • Maximum flexibility for consumers with different legal requirements.

Cons:

  • Adds complexity to every distribution and attribution.
  • Confusing for users unfamiliar with dual licensing.
  • Overkill for a library with no patent risk.

Decision Outcome

Chosen option: A (MIT License).

Paxman is a developer library, not a service or a standards-essential implementation. Its domain (document normalization) carries no patent risk. MIT is the dominant license for Python libraries on PyPI, and the 3-package core dependency policy keeps the legal review surface minimal. The 200-line MIT text is the easiest to review, embed, and reference downstream.

If patent concerns emerge — for example, a corporate sponsor with a patent policy, or a contributor with relevant patent claims — a new ADR will be written and this one marked Superseded.

Consequences

Positive

  • Lowest friction for downstream packagers (Gentoo, Debian, conda-forge).
  • Familiar to the Python ecosystem; no legal surprises.
  • Minimal review burden for consumers integrating Paxman.

Negative

  • No patent grant — corporate users in patent-litigious domains may require an Apache-2.0 wrapper or contributor agreement.

Neutral

  • LICENSE file created in Sprint 1.
  • pyproject.toml declares license = { text = "MIT" }.
  • SPDX identifier MIT used consistently across metadata.

Validation

  • LICENSE file created in Sprint 1 (per sprint-01-foundation.md D1.4).
  • pyproject.toml license = { text = "MIT" } set in Sprint 1.
  • PyPI metadata declares MIT at publish time (Sprint 9 / 10).
  • README.md §License updated to remove the TBD qualifier.
  • choosealicense.com MIT template matches the committed LICENSE file verbatim.

References

  • Sibling document: ../specs/license-decision.md
  • ../index.md §License
  • ../reference/dependencies.md §2 (core dependency policy)
  • ../../PRD.md §6.1 (developer-focused library)
  • SPDX MIT: https://spdx.org/licenses/MIT.html
  • choosealicense.com MIT: https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/