The MIT License, Line by Line • Hacker News Board

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#11

Post by sidpatil » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 4:44 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…

This line confused me for a while, because it looked like a copyleft provision to me.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#12

Post by rdpintqogeogsaa » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 4:48 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #9

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I think most of this (other than the historical references) is in reference to the effective “strong minimum standards” of the Berne Convention, and to the later treaties established between WIPO member nations.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 st…

The devil is, however, most often in the details. Lines such as

> United States law calculates copyright terms differently for individual and “corporate” authors.

make me wonder what it is like in, say, France or Germany.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#13

Post by NewJazz » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 4:50 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…

FWIW, the 0BSD license omits this line and has been OSI approved.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#14

Post by tacitusarc » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 4:54 PM UTC

> The implied warranty of “merchantability” under UCC section 2-314 is a promise that “the goods”—the Software—are of at least average quality, properly packaged and labeled, and fit for the ordinary purposes they are intended to serve.

So, all goods have an implied warranty requiring they must be of at least average quality? How does that work? Does average have a different meeting in a legal context?

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#15

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 4:56 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…

[deleted]

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#16

Post by ghaff » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 4:57 PM UTC

NewJazz wrote: post #13

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…

FWIW, the 0BSD license omits this line and has been OSI approved.

The MIT No Attribution License (MIT-0) is also OSI approved now which is effectively a public domain license. The caveat is that it won't be an approved license at a lot of companies, both because it's new and because many companies shy away from public domain software.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#17

Post by xeeeeeeeeeeenu » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 5:08 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…

>I really don’t care about credit or leaving behind a legacy or such things.

Then use a different license. In 1-clause BSD and Boost licenses the requirement of preserving copyright notices applies only to source code, while 0BSD and CC0 don't require that at all.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#18

Post by martincmartin » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

tacitusarc wrote: post #14

> The implied warranty of “merchantability” under UCC section 2-314 is a promise that “the goods”—the Software—are of at least average quality, properly packaged and labeled, and fit for the ordinary purposes they are intended to serve. So, all goods have an implied warranty requiring they must be of at least average quality? How does that work? Does average have a different meeting in a legal context?

Suppose I sell you an oil filter for your 2019 Mazda. When you get it home, you realize there's a big hole in it, and it can't be used to replace the one currently on your car.

You call me up and I say "I never said it would work in a car, I just said it was an oil filter (true) which would fit into a 2019 Mazda (true)."

The law says "nice try, you can't be that pedantic. The ordinary purpose of oil filters it to actually filter oil in a car, so when you sold it, there was an understanding that it would work for that purpose."

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#19

Post by CameronNemo » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 5:12 PM UTC

sidpatil wrote: post #11

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…

This line confused me for a while, because it looked like a copyleft provision to me.

Is requiring attribution copyleft? I thought copyleft implied needing to make source code available.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#20

Post by alkonaut » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 5:13 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…

How is this “inclusion” typically done for a project that is deployed in compiled format and contains hundreds of libraries with dozens of different licenses? It must be especially difficult on devices where it’s difficult to accept user input or display licenses.

In commercial desktop software I have shipped, it has been a section in help>about with a long list of third party libs each showing a text document.