opening for the June townhall. FYP-Forge is shaping up to be the canonical pipeline that turns a FSKTM FYP into a public OSS project. the question on the table: which OSS license should be the default for projects that go through the pipeline?
i think the answer is MIT for code and CC-BY-4.0 for thesis-adjacent writing. what do you think?
— @haikal.fskm · 20 May 2026
<5 replies>
@saifuddin.fke20 May, 13:14
counter-take: "default MIT" is the same as every other pipeline. if FYP-Forge is a UTHM flagship, we should default to Apache-2.0 for the patent grant — that gives industrial partners a clearer path to fork without legal review.
@ameera.fstmi21 May, 01:02
from a hiring angle: i have interviewed 14 candidates in the last 3 months. 9 of them proudly had an OSS FYP on their CV. 3 of those 9 could actually explain what the license let a downstream user do. 6 of them could not. we should make license choice a part of the FYP-Forge template, not a thing each student figures out at the end.
@tsara.fpm21 May, 06:48
i think the framing is wrong. the question is not "MIT vs Apache" — it is "how do we teach the next generation of FSKTM engineers, and does that match the world they will work in?" the answer to the second question is: we should make license-choice a taught module, not a config flag. that is the actual job now.
@hafiz.fskm22 May, 03:30
one thing i have seen: junior RAs who lean on OSS without a strong mental model ship code that "works" but is one license-clause away from a takedown notice. that is a real cost. the postgrads i work with treat license review as a checkpoint, not paperwork.
@haikal.fskm23 May, 00:12
summary for the townhall agenda: 3 takes on "Apache-2.0 for the patent grant", 1 take on "license as taught module", 1 take on "license review as RA checkpoint". we are not anti-MIT. we are pro-decision. closing summary at the townhall.