The MIT License, Line by Line

That's not quite true. Sometime in the 1990s, before the OSI version became the canonical one, it seems to have morphed from a variant of the X Consortium license to the ECMA license. [1] But, yes, nothing has changed in the past 20 years.

[1] https://opensource.com/article/19/4/history-mit-license

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#5

Post by rdpintqogeogsaa » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 4:31 PM UTC

I would be interested in reading a similar piece from the perspective of someone with a background in the law of continental Europe. I adore this piece of writing, but it's very U.S.-centric in parts.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#6

Post by aklemm » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 4:31 PM UTC

lekevicius wrote: post #3

notRobot wrote: post #2

(2016)

It's not like anything in the license has changed since late 80s.

At risk of piling on, it is silly to cargo-cult dating articles. This is a case where the date truly is not relevant, and that should be recognized. That's a minor point compared to the larger phenomenon which is the insistence on recency for our attention. Why? Probably because the long tail isn't profitable enough, but it is a shame every portal onto the 'net except archive.org and wikipedia.org insist on recency for relevance.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#7

Post by systemvoltage » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 4:39 PM UTC

> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

What’s the reasoning behind asking users to carry around a notice? Why not just let users go without it? Is it for legal reasons or for crediting the authors? I’ve released MIT licensed software before and frankly when someone is using my code, I really don’t care about credit or leaving behind a legacy or such things.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#8

Post by xixixao » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 4:41 PM UTC

I was hoping for a discussion of the “substantial portions” term. The explanation focuses on use as a dependency, but what if I take some MIT code and modify it and include it directly in my project? What counts as “substantial portion”?

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#9

Post by derefr » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 4:43 PM UTC

rdpintqogeogsaa wrote: post #5

I would be interested in reading a similar piece from the perspective of someone with a background in the law of continental Europe. I adore this piece of writing, but it's very U.S.-centric in parts.

I think most of this (other than the historical references) is in reference to the effective “strong minimum standards” of the Berne Convention, and to the later treaties established between WIPO member nations. Therefore, it’s almost† globally applicable.

† From Wikipedia, WIPO non-members: Kosovo, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, South Sudan, and the states with limited recognition. Palestine has observer status.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#10

Post by ghaff » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 4:43 PM UTC

systemvoltage wrote: post #7

> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. What’s the reasoning behind asking users to carry around a notice? Why not just let users go without it? Is it for legal reasons or for crediting the authors? I’ve released MIT licensed software before and frankly when someone is using my code, I really don’t care about credit or leaving be…

Understanding the license in use and the permissions associated with it are important in many contexts. In fact, the MIT license was created in the first place because there were issues associated with just releasing X Windows into the public domain.