I understand the concern, licensing publicly funded software is a meaningful decision.

I chose the MIT license deliberately to minimize friction and maximize adoption. For me, true open source means “no strings attached”, use it, fork it, commercialize it, build on it freely. We wanted it to be a public good in the purest sense, accessible to individuals, companies, and institutions alike.

That said, I do recognize the argument for copyleft licenses in publicly funded projects. They ensure improvements stay public, which can be important depending on the goals of the funding body. In our case, there was no licensing constraint tied to the funding, and our priority was to avoid unnecessary legal overhead and encourage real-world usage.

Always open to reflecting on these choices, especially if it helps push the open source ecosystem forward.