This is the second time I’ve gotten a question like this, so maybe I need to reconsider it.
The Blue Oak license is basically an MIT license. It should work the same as any permissive license, like MIT or BSD. A few years ago there was an article going around Reddit and HN discussing this license and how it’s an improvement over MIT/BSD, particularly in terms of clear language, including additional contributors in the license, and covering patents.
This convinced me to use Blue Oak (though maybe it’s just my tendency to use new shiny things). I use it on most of my GitHub projects, but usually there’s a disclaimer in the README explaining what it is; I don’t have that on Tapir yet.
But it seems like Blue Oak never caught on, I’ve never encountered anyone else using it, and it just breeds confusion. Maybe it would be better to switch to the Apache license, which is permissive and provides the same guarantees.
As far as why I use a permissive license instead of a copyleft license… that’s a deliberate choice and a feature of Tapir. Almost all ActivityPub software is AGPL. AGPL scares businesses away from using software. I know that a lot of people consider that a feature, but, in my opinion, if we want the Fediverse to replace commercial social media, it needs to be practical for businesses to run their own instances too. I don’t think Tapir itself is an ideal platform for that, but it’s also a collection of Typescript libraries that can be reused in other projects, and I want that reuse to be as easy and unencumbered as possible.