Hi All, Pablo from QEDIT here. We are currently working on the spec and implementation of UDA/ZSA.
In my opinion, the main argument for the MIT license is increased security. Being previously employed by a big tech company, I can confirm that a significant part of the decision-making while deciding whether to use an open-source lib comes down to:
GPL/custom license → no use.
Obviously, this is due to legal complexities.
My main argument is: More eyes on the code → more security.
This is complex code implementing a complex spec, and even after months of work, I can say that I don’t cover all its areas. Currently, the only people who are motivated to dig that deep into the code are part of the Zcash ecosystem (The ECC and the foundation) or stakeholders directly hired using the funding streams (QEDIT and others). Licencing as MIT will allow commercial entities to become meaningful stakeholders and significantly increase the number of eyes on the code. Most likely, these entities are not Zcash competitors in any way and are not even part of the cryptocurrency space but simply interested in the cutting-edge cryptography that is part of Orchard/Halo. Security is hard, and the code is constantly changing. The code can surely use the additional attention and exposure that the MIT license will provide.