liquidware-ninjaSecond brain & toolkit
Personal project. Research and learning only. Not for production. No warranty.Not for production
  • Built on my own time for research and learning. Not affiliated with, endorsed by or supported by my employer, Liquidware or Microsoft.
  • Bring your own Liquidware licenses. Don't run any of it in production or against tenants and subscriptions that matter. Test in a dedicated lab first.
  • Provided "as is", without warranty of any kind, under each repository's license. You use it at your own risk and own the Azure charges it incurs.
  • Contributions and forks are welcome and encouraged on public repos. See Contribute.

0002. MIT for the repo; the knowledge base tooling keeps Apache-2.0

acceptedReviewed 2026-10-18Source: decisions/0002-mit-license-apache-kb-tooling.md

Context and Problem Statement

The repo is public and needs a license. Its knowledge base tooling is adapted from Apache-2.0 projects in the family, while the maintainer's other public AVD repos use MIT. Which license applies, and how do the adapted files keep theirs?

Considered Options

  • MIT for the repo, with the adapted tooling under Apache-2.0 and a NOTICE
  • Apache-2.0 for the whole repo, like the family's reference KBs
  • No license

Decision Outcome

Chosen option: "MIT for the repo, with the adapted tooling under Apache-2.0", because the maintainer chose MIT to match the other public AVD repos (Apache's patent grant doesn't matter for this automation), and Apache-2.0 lets its files sit in an MIT repo as long as the license text and NOTICE travel with them.

Consequences

  • Good, because reusers of the Bicep and PowerShell get the simple MIT terms.
  • Good, because the shared tooling stays byte-identical with the family's, so format updates apply cleanly.
  • Bad, because the repo carries two licenses; NOTICE lists which paths each covers.

More Information

The Apache-2.0 text is in LICENSE-APACHE.

Linked from one page