14

The relevant clause from Apache2 is s3: Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a ... patent license ... If You institute patent litigation ... then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate... For a work by a single author, so licensed, that clause doesn't protect ...


5

Open Source license obligations are usually triggered on distribution of the software. That is, if you are only distributing your MIT-licensed NPM package via GitHub but none of its (transitive) dependencies, then it's not you who's creating a potentially conflicting license mix (due to maybe contradicting license obligations). So you're fine as your NPM ...


4

The BSD, MIT and Apache license are all permissive licenses. They have little to no restrictions on how code licensed under then can be used and they have no restrictions on how other projects can be licensed.


2

Yes. If you are uploading to NPM you also do not need to include the license of downstream BSD or Apache licensed code assuming you are not distributing the dependencies. It would be a good idea to mention in your README file's licensing section if you used Apache code because of GPL2 compatibility issues, or if you used BSD+Patents code.


2

The Apache-1.1 and Apache-2.0 licenses are both fairly permissive open-source licenses. Neither of them tries to extend their influence beyond the code that is explicitly licensed with either license and neither contains requirements that is incompatible with the other license. This means that the two licenses are compatible with each other and it is ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible