Is the MIT license suitable for an open source library that is only used in unit testing scenarios?

Question

Some time ago I developed a small project for use in unit testing scenario's and published it on Codeplex. Back then I choose the GPL license but I didn't really understand it. Today I changed it to MIT, because it's a much simpler license that I can understand.

I like to be recognized as the copyright holder, but I want everybody to be able to use the library without worrying about license issues. I think MIT covers both, but not 100% sure. 'Virality' is not an issue for this project.

Would this license (MIT) in any way prevent a person to use my library for the unit testing of a closed-source commercial or private project? In this regard, is my recent change to MIT a change for the better?

Answer 1

The MIT license is essentially a "do whatever you want with this software, just don't blame me if something goes wrong" license. It's quite liberal. So if you don't care how your library is being used (or abused) and just want to be recognized as its author, then go with the MIT license.

Answer 2

The answer to your question is right there in your license:

Permission is hereby granted, ... to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

...

So no, you have pretty much assigned the right for anyone to do as they please with your code, as long as they attribute you.

A great resource for determining which license is the right license for you is the very comprehensive, interactive license differentiator, from Oxford Universities OSS Watch.