Skip to content

ADR-002: Code License — MIT

Status

Accepted

Context and Problem Statement

The codebase (MkDocs configuration, build scripts, GitHub Actions, templates) needs a license separate from the DAG content. The goal is to allow anyone to fork and deploy a similar platform with minimal friction.

Considered Options

  • MIT — Permissive; attribution required, no restrictions on use
  • Apache 2.0 — Permissive + explicit patent grant
  • GPL-3.0 — Copyleft; derivatives must be open-source

Decision Outcome

Chosen option: MIT

MIT is the simplest and most widely recognized permissive license. The academic and research community is familiar with it. The additional patent clause in Apache 2.0 is unnecessary given DAGpedia's scope, and GPL's copyleft requirement would discourage adoption by research groups building on the infrastructure.

Consequences

  • Good: Zero friction for forks and derivative platforms
  • Good: GitHub displays the license prominently in the repository sidebar
  • Good: Familiar to the research software engineering community
  • Bad: No copyleft protection — a commercial actor could close off a fork, but this is an acceptable trade-off for maximum adoption

References

  • https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT