JakartaMigration

This constraint **changes the answer**, and it’s good you raised it now rather than after release. I’ll be very explicit and pragmatic. --- ## Executive Recommendation (Given Future Licensing Intent) > **Use Apache License 2.0 now.** > Do **not** use MIT or BSD if you think you may commercialise later. Apache-2.0 is the *only* permissive license that: * won’t alarm enterprises **now** * won’t block or poison **future licensing paths** * doesn’t require awkward relicensing conversations later MIT/BSD keep things quiet **today**, but they limit leverage **tomorrow**. --- ## Why MIT/BSD Become a Problem If You Want to License Later ### 1. You Cannot “Un-Grant” MIT/BSD Rights Once you release under MIT or BSD: * Anyone can: * fork it * use it commercially * embed it internally forever * You **cannot** later say: > “This now requires a paid license” Existing users are legally protected. This matters because your MCP is: * valuable * niche * enterprise-targeted You don’t want to accidentally give it away permanently. --- ### 2. Dual Licensing Is Weak With MIT/BSD Dual licensing works best when: * the open license is permissive *but bounded* * the commercial license offers *clear additional rights* MIT/BSD already give: * commercial use * modification * redistribution So your paid license can only sell: * support * convenience * warranties That’s a **weak upsell** unless you’re a large vendor. --- ### 3. Apache-2.0 Preserves More Leverage Apache-2.0: * is permissive **but** * has clearer IP boundaries * has patent clauses * is taken more seriously in enterprise governance More importantly: > Apache-2.0 is culturally accepted as a *foundation* for commercial offerings. Many successful enterprise tools started Apache-licensed and later: * added paid enterprise editions * gated advanced features * bundled compliance tooling MIT/BSD projects often struggle to make that transition. --- ## What Apache-2.0 Enables Later (MIT/BSD Don’t) With Apache-2.0 you can later: * Add: * enterprise-only modules * proprietary migration rulesets * compliance packs * Offer: * paid binaries * indemnification * SLAs * Change distribution model *without* relicensing past users You cannot revoke Apache rights either — but you retain **architectural leverage**. --- ## The Subtle but Critical Distinction You are not planning to sell: > “Open-source software” You are planning to sell: > **Risk reduction for regulated migrations** The software is a *delivery mechanism*. Apache-2.0 supports that framing. MIT/BSD undermine it. --- ## The Correct Strategy (Clean and Safe) ### Phase 1 — Now (Consulting-First) * License MCP under **Apache-2.0** * Keep it: * internal * optional * invisible to clients unless needed * Market: * yourself * outcomes * judgement ### Phase 2 — Later (Controlled Exposure) * Publish: * core engine under Apache-2.0 * Keep: * advanced rules * orchestration * compliance features * integrations proprietary This is **open-core without drama**. --- ## What *Not* to Do * ❌ MIT “for now, we’ll change later” * ❌ Custom licenses (friction) * ❌ Non-commercial clauses (enterprise poison) * ❌ AGPL (kills adoption) * ❌ “Internal use only” language (raises alarms) --- ## If You Want Maximum Optionality (Advanced Option) If you want *maximum* future leverage and still low friction: * **Apache-2.0 now** * Clear contributor policy (you are sole author) * CLA **not needed** unless you accept external contributions This keeps ownership clean. --- ## One Sentence You Can Use Externally > “It’s Apache-licensed today, with a roadmap toward an enterprise-supported edition if customers need it.” That sounds: * professional * non-threatening * expected --- ## Final Answer (Unambiguous) > **Apache-2.0 is the correct choice given your future licensing intent.** MIT and BSD are fine if you *never* want leverage. You explicitly do. --- If you want next, I can: * design a **future licensing roadmap** (when/how to introduce paid tiers) * help you structure the MCP repo to support open-core later * draft **language to avoid spooking clients now while preserving monetisation** Just tell me which one. This constraint **changes the answer**, and it’s good you raised it now rather than after release. I’ll be very explicit and pragmatic. --- ## Executive Recommendation (Given Future Licensing Intent) > **Use Apache License 2.0 now.** > Do **not** use MIT or BSD if you think you may commercialise later. Apache-2.0 is the *only* permissive license that: * won’t alarm enterprises **now** * won’t block or poison **future licensing paths** * doesn’t require awkward relicensing conversations later MIT/BSD keep things quiet **today**, but they limit leverage **tomorrow**. --- ## Why MIT/BSD Become a Problem If You Want to License Later ### 1. You Cannot “Un-Grant” MIT/BSD Rights Once you release under MIT or BSD: * Anyone can: * fork it * use it commercially * embed it internally forever * You **cannot** later say: > “This now requires a paid license” Existing users are legally protected. This matters because your MCP is: * valuable * niche * enterprise-targeted You don’t want to accidentally give it away permanently. --- ### 2. Dual Licensing Is Weak With MIT/BSD Dual licensing works best when: * the open license is permissive *but bounded* * the commercial license offers *clear additional rights* MIT/BSD already give: * commercial use * modification * redistribution So your paid license can only sell: * support * convenience * warranties That’s a **weak upsell** unless you’re a large vendor. --- ### 3. Apache-2.0 Preserves More Leverage Apache-2.0: * is permissive **but** * has clearer IP boundaries * has patent clauses * is taken more seriously in enterprise governance More importantly: > Apache-2.0 is culturally accepted as a *foundation* for commercial offerings. Many successful enterprise tools started Apache-licensed and later: * added paid enterprise editions * gated advanced features * bundled compliance tooling MIT/BSD projects often struggle to make that transition. --- ## What Apache-2.0 Enables Later (MIT/BSD Don’t) With Apache-2.0 you can later: * Add: * enterprise-only modules * proprietary migration rulesets * compliance packs * Offer: * paid binaries * indemnification * SLAs * Change distribution model *without* relicensing past users You cannot revoke Apache rights either — but you retain **architectural leverage**. --- ## The Subtle but Critical Distinction You are not planning to sell: > “Open-source software” You are planning to sell: > **Risk reduction for regulated migrations** The software is a *delivery mechanism*. Apache-2.0 supports that framing. MIT/BSD undermine it. --- ## The Correct Strategy (Clean and Safe) ### Phase 1 — Now (Consulting-First) * License MCP under **Apache-2.0** * Keep it: * internal * optional * invisible to clients unless needed * Market: * yourself * outcomes * judgement ### Phase 2 — Later (Controlled Exposure) * Publish: * core engine under Apache-2.0 * Keep: * advanced rules * orchestration * compliance features * integrations proprietary This is **open-core without drama**. --- ## What *Not* to Do * ❌ MIT “for now, we’ll change later” * ❌ Custom licenses (friction) * ❌ Non-commercial clauses (enterprise poison) * ❌ AGPL (kills adoption) * ❌ “Internal use only” language (raises alarms) --- ## If You Want Maximum Optionality (Advanced Option) If you want *maximum* future leverage and still low friction: * **Apache-2.0 now** * Clear contributor policy (you are sole author) * CLA **not needed** unless you accept external contributions This keeps ownership clean. --- ## One Sentence You Can Use Externally > “It’s Apache-licensed today, with a roadmap toward an enterprise-supported edition if customers need it.” That sounds: * professional * non-threatening * expected --- ## Final Answer (Unambiguous) > **Apache-2.0 is the correct choice given your future licensing intent.** MIT and BSD are fine if you *never* want leverage. You explicitly do. --- If you want next, I can: * design a **future licensing roadmap** (when/how to introduce paid tiers) * help you structure the MCP repo to support open-core later * draft **language to avoid spooking clients now while preserving monetisation** Just tell me which one. This constraint **changes the answer**, and it’s good you raised it now rather than after release. I’ll be very explicit and pragmatic. --- ## Executive Recommendation (Given Future Licensing Intent) > **Use Apache License 2.0 now.** > Do **not** use MIT or BSD if you think you may commercialise later. Apache-2.0 is the *only* permissive license that: * won’t alarm enterprises **now** * won’t block or poison **future licensing paths** * doesn’t require awkward relicensing conversations later MIT/BSD keep things quiet **today**, but they limit leverage **tomorrow**. --- ## Why MIT/BSD Become a Problem If You Want to License Later ### 1. You Cannot “Un-Grant” MIT/BSD Rights Once you release under MIT or BSD: * Anyone can: * fork it * use it commercially * embed it internally forever * You **cannot** later say: > “This now requires a paid license” Existing users are legally protected. This matters because your MCP is: * valuable * niche * enterprise-targeted You don’t want to accidentally give it away permanently. --- ### 2. Dual Licensing Is Weak With MIT/BSD Dual licensing works best when: * the open license is permissive *but bounded* * the commercial license offers *clear additional rights* MIT/BSD already give: * commercial use * modification * redistribution So your paid license can only sell: * support * convenience * warranties That’s a **weak upsell** unless you’re a large vendor. --- ### 3. Apache-2.0 Preserves More Leverage Apache-2.0: * is permissive **but** * has clearer IP boundaries * has patent clauses * is taken more seriously in enterprise governance More importantly: > Apache-2.0 is culturally accepted as a *foundation* for commercial offerings. Many successful enterprise tools started Apache-licensed and later: * added paid enterprise editions * gated advanced features * bundled compliance tooling MIT/BSD projects often struggle to make that transition. --- ## What Apache-2.0 Enables Later (MIT/BSD Don’t) With Apache-2.0 you can later: * Add: * enterprise-only modules * proprietary migration rulesets * compliance packs * Offer: * paid binaries * indemnification * SLAs * Change distribution model *without* relicensing past users You cannot revoke Apache rights either — but you retain **architectural leverage**. --- ## The Subtle but Critical Distinction You are not planning to sell: > “Open-source software” You are planning to sell: > **Risk reduction for regulated migrations** The software is a *delivery mechanism*. Apache-2.0 supports that framing. MIT/BSD undermine it. --- ## The Correct Strategy (Clean and Safe) ### Phase 1 — Now (Consulting-First) * License MCP under **Apache-2.0** * Keep it: * internal * optional * invisible to clients unless needed * Market: * yourself * outcomes * judgement ### Phase 2 — Later (Controlled Exposure) * Publish: * core engine under Apache-2.0 * Keep: * advanced rules * orchestration * compliance features * integrations proprietary This is **open-core without drama**. --- ## What *Not* to Do * ❌ MIT “for now, we’ll change later” * ❌ Custom licenses (friction) * ❌ Non-commercial clauses (enterprise poison) * ❌ AGPL (kills adoption) * ❌ “Internal use only” language (raises alarms) --- ## If You Want Maximum Optionality (Advanced Option) If you want *maximum* future leverage and still low friction: * **Apache-2.0 now** * Clear contributor policy (you are sole author) * CLA **not needed** unless you accept external contributions This keeps ownership clean. --- ## One Sentence You Can Use Externally > “It’s Apache-licensed today, with a roadmap toward an enterprise-supported edition if customers need it.” That sounds: * professional * non-threatening * expected --- ## Final Answer (Unambiguous) > **Apache-2.0 is the correct choice given your future licensing intent.** MIT and BSD are fine if you *never* want leverage. You explicitly do. --- If you want next, I can: * design a **future licensing roadmap** (when/how to introduce paid tiers) * help you structure the MCP repo to support open-core later * draft **language to avoid spooking clients now while preserving monetisation** Just tell me which one. This constraint **changes the answer**, and it’s good you raised it now rather than after release. I’ll be very explicit and pragmatic. --- ## Executive Recommendation (Given Future Licensing Intent) > **Use Apache License 2.0 now.** > Do **not** use MIT or BSD if you think you may commercialise later. Apache-2.0 is the *only* permissive license that: * won’t alarm enterprises **now** * won’t block or poison **future licensing paths** * doesn’t require awkward relicensing conversations later MIT/BSD keep things quiet **today**, but they limit leverage **tomorrow**. --- ## Why MIT/BSD Become a Problem If You Want to License Later ### 1. You Cannot “Un-Grant” MIT/BSD Rights Once you release under MIT or BSD: * Anyone can: * fork it * use it commercially * embed it internally forever * You **cannot** later say: > “This now requires a paid license” Existing users are legally protected. This matters because your MCP is: * valuable * niche * enterprise-targeted You don’t want to accidentally give it away permanently. --- ### 2. Dual Licensing Is Weak With MIT/BSD Dual licensing works best when: * the open license is permissive *but bounded* * the commercial license offers *clear additional rights* MIT/BSD already give: * commercial use * modification * redistribution So your paid license can only sell: * support * convenience * warranties That’s a **weak upsell** unless you’re a large vendor. --- ### 3. Apache-2.0 Preserves More Leverage Apache-2.0: * is permissive **but** * has clearer IP boundaries * has patent clauses * is taken more seriously in enterprise governance More importantly: > Apache-2.0 is culturally accepted as a *foundation* for commercial offerings. Many successful enterprise tools started Apache-licensed and later: * added paid enterprise editions * gated advanced features * bundled compliance tooling MIT/BSD projects often struggle to make that transition. --- ## What Apache-2.0 Enables Later (MIT/BSD Don’t) With Apache-2.0 you can later: * Add: * enterprise-only modules * proprietary migration rulesets * compliance packs * Offer: * paid binaries * indemnification * SLAs * Change distribution model *without* relicensing past users You cannot revoke Apache rights either — but you retain **architectural leverage**. --- ## The Subtle but Critical Distinction You are not planning to sell: > “Open-source software” You are planning to sell: > **Risk reduction for regulated migrations** The software is a *delivery mechanism*. Apache-2.0 supports that framing. MIT/BSD undermine it. --- ## The Correct Strategy (Clean and Safe) ### Phase 1 — Now (Consulting-First) * License MCP under **Apache-2.0** * Keep it: * internal * optional * invisible to clients unless needed * Market: * yourself * outcomes * judgement ### Phase 2 — Later (Controlled Exposure) * Publish: * core engine under Apache-2.0 * Keep: * advanced rules * orchestration * compliance features * integrations proprietary This is **open-core without drama**. --- ## What *Not* to Do * ❌ MIT “for now, we’ll change later” * ❌ Custom licenses (friction) * ❌ Non-commercial clauses (enterprise poison) * ❌ AGPL (kills adoption) * ❌ “Internal use only” language (raises alarms) --- ## If You Want Maximum Optionality (Advanced Option) If you want *maximum* future leverage and still low friction: * **Apache-2.0 now** * Clear contributor policy (you are sole author) * CLA **not needed** unless you accept external contributions This keeps ownership clean. --- ## One Sentence You Can Use Externally > “It’s Apache-licensed today, with a roadmap toward an enterprise-supported edition if customers need it.” That sounds: * professional * non-threatening * expected --- ## Final Answer (Unambiguous) > **Apache-2.0 is the correct choice given your future licensing intent.** MIT and BSD are fine if you *never* want leverage. You explicitly do. --- If you want next, I can: * design a **future licensing roadmap** (when/how to introduce paid tiers) * help you structure the MCP repo to support open-core later * draft **language to avoid spooking clients now while preserving monetisation** Just tell me which one. This constraint **changes the answer**, and it’s good you raised it now rather than after release. I’ll be very explicit and pragmatic. --- ## Executive Recommendation (Given Future Licensing Intent) > **Use Apache License 2.0 now.** > Do **not** use MIT or BSD if you think you may commercialise later. Apache-2.0 is the *only* permissive license that: * won’t alarm enterprises **now** * won’t block or poison **future licensing paths** * doesn’t require awkward relicensing conversations later MIT/BSD keep things quiet **today**, but they limit leverage **tomorrow**. --- ## Why MIT/BSD Become a Problem If You Want to License Later ### 1. You Cannot “Un-Grant” MIT/BSD Rights Once you release under MIT or BSD: * Anyone can: * fork it * use it commercially * embed it internally forever * You **cannot** later say: > “This now requires a paid license” Existing users are legally protected. This matters because your MCP is: * valuable * niche * enterprise-targeted You don’t want to accidentally give it away permanently. --- ### 2. Dual Licensing Is Weak With MIT/BSD Dual licensing works best when: * the open license is permissive *but bounded* * the commercial license offers *clear additional rights* MIT/BSD already give: * commercial use * modification * redistribution So your paid license can only sell: * support * convenience * warranties That’s a **weak upsell** unless you’re a large vendor. --- ### 3. Apache-2.0 Preserves More Leverage Apache-2.0: * is permissive **but** * has clearer IP boundaries * has patent clauses * is taken more seriously in enterprise governance More importantly: > Apache-2.0 is culturally accepted as a *foundation* for commercial offerings. Many successful enterprise tools started Apache-licensed and later: * added paid enterprise editions * gated advanced features * bundled compliance tooling MIT/BSD projects often struggle to make that transition. --- ## What Apache-2.0 Enables Later (MIT/BSD Don’t) With Apache-2.0 you can later: * Add: * enterprise-only modules * proprietary migration rulesets * compliance packs * Offer: * paid binaries * indemnification * SLAs * Change distribution model *without* relicensing past users You cannot revoke Apache rights either — but you retain **architectural leverage**. --- ## The Subtle but Critical Distinction You are not planning to sell: > “Open-source software” You are planning to sell: > **Risk reduction for regulated migrations** The software is a *delivery mechanism*. Apache-2.0 supports that framing. MIT/BSD undermine it. --- ## The Correct Strategy (Clean and Safe) ### Phase 1 — Now (Consulting-First) * License MCP under **Apache-2.0** * Keep it: * internal * optional * invisible to clients unless needed * Market: * yourself * outcomes * judgement ### Phase 2 — Later (Controlled Exposure) * Publish: * core engine under Apache-2.0 * Keep: * advanced rules * orchestration * compliance features * integrations proprietary This is **open-core without drama**. --- ## What *Not* to Do * ❌ MIT “for now, we’ll change later” * ❌ Custom licenses (friction) * ❌ Non-commercial clauses (enterprise poison) * ❌ AGPL (kills adoption) * ❌ “Internal use only” language (raises alarms) --- ## If You Want Maximum Optionality (Advanced Option) If you want *maximum* future leverage and still low friction: * **Apache-2.0 now** * Clear contributor policy (you are sole author) * CLA **not needed** unless you accept external contributions This keeps ownership clean. --- ## One Sentence You Can Use Externally > “It’s Apache-licensed today, with a roadmap toward an enterprise-supported edition if customers need it.” That sounds: * professional * non-threatening * expected --- ## Final Answer (Unambiguous) > **Apache-2.0 is the correct choice given your future licensing intent.** MIT and BSD are fine if you *never* want leverage. You explicitly do. --- If you want next, I can: * design a **future licensing roadmap** (when/how to introduce paid tiers) * help you structure the MCP repo to support open-core later * draft **language to avoid spooking clients now while preserving monetisation** Just tell me which one.