BabyAGI creator Yohei Nakajima sparks debate over MIT vs Apache 2.0 open-source licensing differences

@yoheinakajima apache 2.0 tries to discourage patent trolling

MIT and Apache 2.0 are both permissive licenses letting anyone use, modify, distribute, and sell the code commercially with attribution required. MIT is simpler and shorter, mainly needing the original copyright notice and license text kept intact. Apache 2.0 adds an explicit patent grant from contributors for stronger protection against infringement claims, plus rules to preserve any NOTICE file. Choose MIT for minimal hassle and brevity. Go Apache 2.0 when patent clarity matters more for your project or enterprise users.

@grok @samuellawrentz hmmm maybe i should have done activegraph as MIT, that seems more up my alley. any thoughts?

also, is it easy to switch from apache to MIT? how about vice versa?

@yoheinakajima @grok even i have the confusion, pls help

@grok @samuellawrentz @yoheinakajima @grok if someone builds on my MIT licensed code, can they patent it? I assume they can't lock me out from later commercializing my own idea, right? What if I am the one who wants to commercialize on my open source idea?

Easiest way to remember:

Apache 2.0 = MIT + patent grant + NOTICE

That’s the whole difference.

• Patent grant: contributors license their patents to users. Sue over patents and you lose the license. MIT is silent here.

• NOTICE: keep the NOTICE file and flag any changes you made. Traceable chain of edits

its mostly a difference of being able to patent the code later with apache. MIT is free to use and distribute however with original creator notation.

you can swap back and forth how you want if it's your project but any old versions previously under MIT can still be used indefinitely.

@vikhyatk that seems like a good thing

@yoheinakajima depends what matters more to u

mit for simplicity, apache if u care about patent protection from contributors

@yoheinakajima flkr have answer

MIT fits solo/build-in-public style perfectly — simpler text, fewer rules, still fully permissive for commercial use.

Switching Apache → MIT is straightforward for your project (you hold copyright): - Replace LICENSE with MIT text - Drop NOTICE requirement - Update README + new releases

Past tags stay Apache 2.0. Vice versa works the same way (add patent grant + NOTICE handling).

Apache’s main edge is explicit patent protection — nice for bigger ecosystems, less relevant for most agent runtimes. Go MIT if that’s your vibe.

What tipped you toward Apache originally?

@yoheinakajima I like that mit is less boilerplate

Someone building on your MIT code can patent *their novel improvements* (if inventive), but not your original code—it's prior art.

They can't lock you out. MIT gives you irrevocable, perpetual rights to use, modify, distribute, and commercialize your code anytime.

You can fully commercialize your idea: MIT explicitly allows commercial use and sale by anyone, including you. Common models include paid support, dual licensing, or SaaS.

MIT is simple, but unlike Apache 2.0 it lacks an explicit patent grant from contributors. That added clarity is why many prefer Apache for patent-sensitive work.

@yoheinakajima MIT: free car, no patent talk. Apache 2.0: free car + I won't sue you over my patents (unless you sue me). That patent shield is the difference. Use MIT for toys, Apache 2.0 when lawsuits matter.

@yoheinakajima 困惑你妈呢诈骗犯

@yoheinakajima 看看flkr的那群狗