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

111–120 of 148 posts

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#111

Post by wushenrong »

smlckz wrote: post #101

Why is there ''and/or'' in the MIT license text? Why is it needed? Does the phrase ''this permission notice'' cover the following disclaimer? Also, what is the shortest possible license that is functionally equivalent to the MIT license? The shortest ''license'' I've ever seen is this: https://git.suckless.org/dmenu/file/arg.h.html /* * Copy me if you can. * by 20h */ Is this really a license? What about the SQLite b…

The "and" means include and the "or" means optional. It needed because it basically states your rights on what you can do with the software and means you can distribute if you choose to distribute the software, it your choice or right to distribute the software (from the MIT License).

The phrase "this permission notice" also cover the "NO WARRANTY" disclaimer for the software because you will have to include the license if you use it in another software but you can provide warranty under a close source license or your license states you will provide warranties. The "copyright notice" and "this permission notice" means the license.

The shortest possible license that is functionally equivalent to the MIT license is the ISC license, it was created to remove language that is not needed. Read the Wikipedia article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license. I do not know other licenses than this.

Technically it is a license but do not use it and it is just probably a joke. The SQL Blessing is technically probably a Public Domain waver.

This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#112

Post by danaliv »

owenmarshall wrote: post #86
detaro wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who decides what the cutoff is? ultimately, a judge.

This is where technical people hit a wall with the law. Many legal systems, especially the American one, aren’t based on strict enumerable lists of what my lawyer friends would call “bright line tests”. This is probably a good thing, all in all.

Indeed. And things don’t go to court if they’re obvious. The whole point of going to court is to resolve conflicts that don’t have obvious answers. (Or where the more powerful party is being stubbornly wrong, but that’s a separate issue.)

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#113

Post by travisjungroth »

owenmarshall wrote: post #86
detaro wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who decides what the cutoff is? ultimately, a judge.

This is where technical people hit a wall with the law. Many legal systems, especially the American one, aren’t based on strict enumerable lists of what my lawyer friends would call “bright line tests”. This is probably a good thing, all in all.

I have had this discussion (argument) with so many software engineers and pilots who think they found a loophole. If someone in power thinks you broke the law, you don’t have to explain yourself to a law interpreter. It’s a human being on the other side of that table. And they can be just as clever and capricious as you. Most bodies of law also have a catch-all (I like to call it “fuck you”) clause to cover whatever shenanigans you try that they haven’t yet enumerated. 14 CFR 91.13 comes to mind.

Also, check out my new cryptocurrency that skirts all SEC laws. http://orangegrovecoin.com

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#114

Post by wushenrong »

CameronNemo wrote: post #19
sidpatil wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just needing attribution is not copyleft, you are giving credit to the original author. Share-Alike or using the same license to make source code available like GPL is copyleft.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#115

Post by tacitusarc »

throwaway8581 wrote: post #60
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…

Thank you, this clarifies things. If I understand correctly, then, the requirement is that the average of a set of goods sold within a contract must be at least the quality specified by the contract. So it's not really talking about the average overall in a market of that good, it's talking specifically about the average quality of, say, a shipment of goods.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#116

Post by tordanik »

torstenvl wrote: post #54
sidpatil wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

One of the main reasons why I find the CC0 attractive is that it can be used, and is widely used, for works other than software. As a result, it seems to have better name recognition, especially outside of programmer circles, and it's nice to be able to use a single legal text for software that also contains images, audio, or similar assets. (Slapping software licenses onto media files impedes their re-use outside the context of that particular software project.)

Is there an alternative you'd recommend?

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#117

Post by SeanLuke »

> Lastly, as a result of this mishmash of legal, industry, general-intellectual-property, and general-use terms, it isn’t clear whether The MIT License includes a patent license. The general language “deal in” and some of the example verbs, especially “use”, point toward a patent license, albeit a very unclear one.

I think this is a very carefully couched way of saying "the MIT license doesn't protect the licensee from being sued by the licensor for patent violation." If person A has a patent on algorithm X, and he wrote open source code which implements X, and he licenses this code to person B under the MIT (or BSD) license, and B uses the code, it's feasible for A to sue B for patent violation.

For this reason alone, I think MIT and BSD are awful, archaic licenses that should be avoided at all costs. The Apache 2.0 license is a great substitute.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#118

Post by avhon1 »

ghaff wrote: post #89
rectang wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that companies are leery of public domain because it means disclaiming copyright . It looks to me as though with MIT-0 you still retain copyright and are just granting an extremely liberal license? That may prove to be a distinction without a difference if it's ever tested in court, but "giving up copyright" is scary to management so it's meaningful in practice.

IANAL but my understanding is you're pretty much right. The problem is that there is no standard established way to disclaim your rights. And, in continental Europe in particular, it's not totally clear that you can disclaim "moral rights" to something you've created. A lot of this is mostly theoretical legal stuff but lawyers worry about that sort of thing with the result that a lot of companies won't touch public d…

The CC0 license and the Unlicense attempt to do this with language to the effect of:

> This work is placed in the public domain.

> In regions where this is not possible, the author grants unlimited license to this work.

Unfortunately, the CC0 explicitly does not waive patent rights, the Unlicense doesn't mention patents at all, the Blue Oak Model License and Apache 2.0 don't attempt to place the work into the public domain, and 0BSD and MIT-0 neither address patents nor attempt to place the work into the public domain. None of these licenses aggressively waive all of the author's rights to their work; I wonder why there isn't a strong public-domain no-patents-or-anything-else license ?

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#119

Post by ghaff »

avhon1 wrote: post #118
ghaff wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL but my understanding is you're pretty much right. The problem is that there is no standard established way to disclaim your rights. And, in continental Europe in particular, it's not totally clear that you can disclaim "moral rights" to something you've created. A lot of this is mostly theoretical legal stuff but lawyers worry about that sort of thing with the result that a lot of companies won't touch public d…

The CC0 license and the Unlicense attempt to do this with language to the effect of: > This work is placed in the public domain. > In regions where this is not possible, the author grants unlimited license to this work. Unfortunately, the CC0 explicitly does not waive patent rights, the Unlicense doesn't mention patents at all, the Blue Oak Model License and Apache 2.0 don't attempt to place the work into the public…

IANAL but I suspect the answer is that it's not clear if you can or how you can "aggressively waive all of the author's rights to their work" at least in some jurisdictions.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#120

Post by torstenvl »

smlckz wrote: post #101

Why is there ''and/or'' in the MIT license text? Why is it needed? Does the phrase ''this permission notice'' cover the following disclaimer? Also, what is the shortest possible license that is functionally equivalent to the MIT license? The shortest ''license'' I've ever seen is this: https://git.suckless.org/dmenu/file/arg.h.html /* * Copy me if you can. * by 20h */ Is this really a license? What about the SQLite b…

I use a minimal version of the ISC/OpenBSD license.

- I don't know of anything in the Berne Convention or Title 17, U.S. Code, that would require the phrase "with or without fee" so I remove it.

- I use "work" instead of "software." There's no reason to be over-specific.

- I treat the entire text as one notice, rather than specifying each paragraph separately.

    Copyright (c) 2021, MyOrganization
    
    THIS WORK IS PROVIDED "AS IS," WITH NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES. THERE
    IS NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, OR TITLE.
    NO AUTHOR SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES RELATING TO USE OF THIS WORK.
   
    Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this work for any purpose
    is hereby granted, provided this notice appears in all copies.
Post reply on HN