Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The MIT License, Line by Line

writing.kemitchell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 148 posts

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#21

Post by torstenvl »

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?

Average has exactly the meaning it has in all other contexts. It seems to be a bizarrely common (and obviously incorrect) meme on HN that half of all elements of a set are below average.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#22

Post by systemvoltage »

xeeeeeeeeeeenu wrote: post #17
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.

Thanks. I was wondering which license actually satisfies "Don't care" philosophy and gets me out of any legal responsibility/liability.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#23

Post by systemvoltage »

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.

It's not copy left, but users have the right to see the license "tree" if you will of all the things you've built your code with.

I think, as others have pointed out in the replies, 0BSD or MIT-0 is more suitable for me.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#24

Post by detaro »

aklemm wrote: post #6
lekevicius wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

Providing a date for context is not "insisting on recency for relevance", it's providing context. Even if that context is just that some people recognize "ok, that's the article I read a while back and not an updated version".

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#25

Post by torstenvl »

xixixao wrote: post #8

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”?

In general it means "this applies to derivative works." At best, it might provide an argument that APIs aren't covered (now that that's a thing). But copyright law doesn't really recognize "substantial portion" as a term of art (though it's arguably related to one of the prongs of a Fair Use inquiry). IANYL but my personal practice is and would be to ignore the word "substantial."

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#26

Post by shawnz »

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…

The article gives 3 reasons for the notice requirement right below that quote. Which ones do you disagree with?

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#27

Post by torstenvl »

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…

You're removing the license in that case, which means downstream users aren't informed that they are direct licensees. It's dishonest.

Additionally, the Berne Convention recognizes a "moral right" to claim authorship.

https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/283698

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#28

Post by lanna »

torstenvl wrote: post #21
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?

Average has exactly the meaning it has in all other contexts. It seems to be a bizarrely common (and obviously incorrect) meme on HN that half of all elements of a set are below average.

GP comment did not imply that half of elements are below average. It just said that _some_ have to be. By definition, we cannot have all elements be above average: at least one has to be below.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#29

Post by torstenvl »

systemvoltage wrote: post #22
xeeeeeeeeeeenu wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Thanks. I was wondering which license actually satisfies "Don't care" philosophy and gets me out of any legal responsibility/liability.

Just commit the work to the public domain then.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#30

Post by torstenvl »

lanna wrote: post #28
torstenvl wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Average has exactly the meaning it has in all other contexts. It seems to be a bizarrely common (and obviously incorrect) meme on HN that half of all elements of a set are below average.

GP comment did not imply that half of elements are below average. It just said that _some_ have to be. By definition, we cannot have all elements be above average: at least one has to be below.

The average (median, mode, rounded mean) package of a dozen eggs contains 12 yolks. Occasionally there are 13 or even 14. Some packages intentionally contain 24.

Vanishingly few if any contain 11 or fewer yolks.

Post reply on HN