So I decided to cut off my quote but the next line has the answer:
> For example, Rust crates are generally dual-licensed as MIT/Apache 2.
We often produce components that we share with the broader open source world. For example, dropshot[1] is our in-house web framework, but we publish it as a standalone package. It is licensed under Apache-2.0 instead of MPL 2.0 because the norm in the Rust ecosystem is Apache and not MPL.
> You're saying that Oxide can then be licensed under BSD/MIT/ISC?
I am saying that we do not have one single license across the company. Some components are probably BSD/MIT/ISC licensed somewhere, and I guarantee that some third party dependencies we use are licensed under those licenses. That's different from "you could choose to take it under BSD," which I didn't mean to imply, sorry about that!
> For example, Rust crates are generally dual-licensed as MIT/Apache 2.
We often produce components that we share with the broader open source world. For example, dropshot[1] is our in-house web framework, but we publish it as a standalone package. It is licensed under Apache-2.0 instead of MPL 2.0 because the norm in the Rust ecosystem is Apache and not MPL.
> You're saying that Oxide can then be licensed under BSD/MIT/ISC?
I am saying that we do not have one single license across the company. Some components are probably BSD/MIT/ISC licensed somewhere, and I guarantee that some third party dependencies we use are licensed under those licenses. That's different from "you could choose to take it under BSD," which I didn't mean to imply, sorry about that!
1: https://crates.io/crates/dropshot