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

51–60 of 148 posts

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#51

Post by tacitusarc »

betenoire wrote: post #38
lanna wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect, you are just trying really hard to be pedantic. Your convoluted, contorted, corner-case example does not invalidate anything that was said here. You even had to resort to the word "rounded" to make it work. Without "rounded", most would be below mean.

> at least one has to be below (average) this is the pedantic part. Normal usage of average means "pretty much what I expected", which is what they are trying to convey, imo.

I think normally usage, that is non mathematical usage, doesn't mean what I expected, it means the middle of available options, or perhaps the most common option. When applied to quality one would expect that means there is low quality, average quality, and high quality. So I seriously don't know what this means in a legal context.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#52

Post by dctoedt »

torstenvl wrote: post #31

Great article, similar to a blog post I did recently. This is a minor nitpick and shouldn't be read as an overall criticism of the author or this post, which is better than the one I did. However, I will note that non-infringement and title are, in fact, implied warranties in the UCC. I'm not sure why the author missed it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-312

Minor correction: Under UCC § 2-312(3) (link in parent), non-infringement is an implied warranty only if the seller is a "merchant," i.e., one who regularly deals in goods of the kind.

The implied warranty of noninfringement can be disclaimed under § 2-316, and vendors almost universally do so (preferring to make specific express warranties instead when they perceive a market need).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-316

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#53

Post by jraph »

ghaff wrote: post #34
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.

Also MIT-0. Note that CC0 is not an OSI-approved license. It was withdrawn because the OSI didn't like that it explicitly does not grant patent rights to use the software.

When I read your comment I initially thought "that can't be right".

And then I found [1]:

> CC0 was not explicitly rejected, but the License Review Committee was unable to reach consensus that it should be approved, and Creative Commons eventually withdrew the application. The most serious of the concerns raised had to do with the effects of clause 4(a), which reads: "No ... patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document.". While many open source licenses simply do not mention patents, it is exceedingly rare for open source licenses to explicitly disclaim any conveyance of patent rights, and the Committee felt that approving such a license would set a dangerous precedent, and possibly even weaken patent infringement defenses available to users of software released under CC0.

For the record, the FSF also recommends against using CC0 for software for the exact same reason [2].

I was surprised because my first impression was that this clause does not legally do anything more, anything less than a license that does not explicitly grants the rights to use the related software patents anyway. But I can imagine that without an explicit mention, a judge could still decide that a user receiving a program could reasonably feel allowed to use the related patents from its authors.

Anyway, CC0 should not be used or software indeed I guess, given the vagueness around it.

[1] https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero

[2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#54

Post by torstenvl »

sidpatil wrote: post #40
systemvoltage wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I think, as others have pointed out in the replies, 0BSD or MIT-0 is more suitable for me. Why not go with [CC0] in that case? It's a lot more robust, and recommended by the FSF over options like the Unlicense. [CC0] https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

I can't imagine using CC0 under any circumstances. If you're in the U.S., commit to public domain. If you aren't, then veering way off into contract law instead of copyright law is distinctly unhelpful. There isn't a Berne Convention to cross-level contract law.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#55

Post by [deleted] »

dctoedt wrote: post #52
torstenvl wrote: post #31

Great article, similar to a blog post I did recently. This is a minor nitpick and shouldn't be read as an overall criticism of the author or this post, which is better than the one I did. However, I will note that non-infringement and title are, in fact, implied warranties in the UCC. I'm not sure why the author missed it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-312

Minor correction: Under UCC § 2-312(3) (link in parent), non-infringement is an implied warranty only if the seller is a "merchant," i.e., one who regularly deals in goods of the kind. The implied warranty of noninfringement can be disclaimed under § 2-316, and vendors almost universally do so (preferring to make specific express warranties instead when they perceive a market need). https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/…

[deleted]

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#56

Post by cyral »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #49
torstenvl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not following your train of thought here really. Are you saying that people are stripping out the notice from the source code as a matter of course and then redistributing it?

Is that minification?

I thought minifiers were supposed to keep licenses (they can detect the license header). I suppose this could get turned off or messed up by accident with the gigantic custom webpack bundlers even stuff like create-react-app ship with.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#57

Post by xeeeeeeeeeeenu »

jraph wrote: post #53
ghaff wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also MIT-0. Note that CC0 is not an OSI-approved license. It was withdrawn because the OSI didn't like that it explicitly does not grant patent rights to use the software.

When I read your comment I initially thought "that can't be right". And then I found [1]: > CC0 was not explicitly rejected, but the License Review Committee was unable to reach consensus that it should be approved, and Creative Commons eventually withdrew the application. The most serious of the concerns raised had to do with the effects of clause 4(a), which reads: "No ... patent rights held by Affirmer are waived,…

>I was surprised because my first impression was that this clause does not legally do anything more, anything less than a license that does not explicitly grants the rights to use the related software patents anyway. But I can imagine that without an explicit mention, a judge could still decide that a user receiving a program could reasonably feel allowed to use the related patents from its authors.

Yes, many lawyers believe in implicit patent license: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#58

Post by greggyb »

CameronNemo wrote: post #46
torstenvl wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

So if I copy a 3 line example off stackoverflow I may need to add a license disclaimer... Wow.

It depends on SO's terms of use. Without any terms to the contrary, which I am confident exist, you would be violating copyright by copying that example, regardless of attribution.

Assuming the example is the original work of the author of the post (and again, assuming no other terms), then that post author would hold copyright to the work. You would have no license to copy or distribute it.

I have great confidence that SO's terms include a section wherein contributors grant license or grant copyright to SO. At that point (again, assuming no other terms), you would still have no right or license to copy or distribute the work.

Assuming SO has a very permissive license to the work, including the ability to re-license it, they can grant you a license to copy or distribute the work. At that point you are bound by the terms of the license SO grants you.

Read the terms to get specifics.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#59

Post by cbhl »

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 MIT license was written in the late 1980s.

It was typical for software to be distributed in physical media (floppy disks, and, later, CD-ROMs) through brick-and-mortar retail stores. It was not uncommon for someone to sell physical media with otherwise-free software, and so it was desirable to make end-users aware that the software was available for free. The GPL's "accompany it with a written offer... of the corresponding source code" is also an interesting holdover from this era (nowadays everyone just distributes source over the Internet, instead of sending checks and CDs through the mail).

Copyright notices were also typically visible when you first started a program in the 80s and 90s. These were relegated to "about" menus when it became the norm to "design a launch screen that’s nearly identical to the first screen of your app" to make apps feel faster.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#60

Post by throwaway8581 »

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?

The article doesn't really get it right. This is what the UCC actually says:

(2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as: (a) Pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; and (b) In the case of fungible goods, are of fair average quality within the description; and (c) Are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; and (d) Run, within the variations permitted by the agreement, of even kind, quality and quantity within each unit and among all units involved; and (e) Are adequately contained, packaged and labeled as the agreement may require; and (f) Conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any.

Here is what the official comments to the UCC say:

Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) are to be read together. Both refer, as indicated above, to the standards of that line of the trade which fits the transaction and the seller's business. “Fair average” is a term directly appropriate to agricultural bulk products and means goods centering around the middle belt of quality, not the least or the worst that can be understood in the particular trade by the designation, but such as can pass “without objection.” Of course a fair percentage of the least is permissible but the goods are not “fair average” if they are all of the least or worst quality possible under the description. In cases of doubt as to what quality is intended, the price at which a merchant closes a contract is an excellent index of the nature and scope of his obligation under the present section.

So if you understand (a) and (b) in unison, it means that you can't sell someone a lot of goods but then send them all below-average quality units. But, of course, a truck load of apples can still have a "fair percentage" of low-quality apples. Where you're selling a single item, like a computer, then (a) is the better lens of looking at it.

None of this is legal advice. I'm not your lawyer.

Post reply on HN