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

131–140 of 148 posts

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#131

Post by smlckz »

kemitchell wrote: post #125
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…

> Why is there ''and/or'' in the MIT license text? Why is it needed? It's a stupid lawyer thing. A lot of us still write like this. I'm sorry. > Does the phrase ''this permission notice'' cover the following disclaimer? Arguable, but why would anyone bother chopping off the disclaimer? > Also, what is the shortest possible license that is functionally equivalent to the MIT license? Form and function aren't so neatly…

Another stupid question: under what terms the licenses themselves are licensed? It is very clear in the Blue Oak Model license page. But what about all of these licenses like MIT, ISC, BSDs etc.?

Last question, how much change in the software allowes me to add my name and where to add it, before or after original author(s)?

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#132

Post by fenomas »

kemitchell wrote: post #67
thed wrote: post #42

This article touches a point I have been wondering about regarding the Notice condition: "But web developers, as a whole, haven’t got the memo.". The JavaScript and npm ecosystem are extremely dependency-heavy. Even if you only take a few yourself, the number of sub-dependencies of even a simple application are often in the hundreds. Why does "everyone" ignore the attribution of their dependencies and sub-dependencie…

I doubt there's any single answer that isn't tautological. In other kinds of development, like embedded programming, notice files are a part of the cycle. Web developers simply haven't developed the habit. Which is a real head scratcher, because as a rule, JavaScript developers use JavaScript package managers, and JavaScript package managers, especially npm, provide good license metadata and auditability. You can hav…

> You can have an automated tool, usually a plugin for your front-end bundler, compile a pretty good notice file for you,

I think the tl;dr is that this is feasible but not common, and there's no single widely-used default way of doing it.

E.g. Many packages put their copyright/license info in special inline comments (using /! ... / tags), and every minifier I've used keeps such tags by default. But including these tags in your bundles can be undesirable - if a dependency has: /! Copyright foo@bar / without specifying the package name, then your bundle will appear to be entirely (c) that author.

OTOH the huge majority of projects do include a valid license identifier in a package.json tag (since npm complains if you don't). But I don't think there's any widely-used default way of generating a good licenses declaration from them.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#133

Post by fiddlerwoaroof »

cyral wrote: post #56
6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I've looked at Webpack's output before, and I don't recall seeing any headers there.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#134

Post by NewJazz »

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…

What is the advantage of mentioning patents? I would rather not speak on that so 0BSD and Unlicense are nice.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#135

Post by shakna »

torstenvl wrote: post #120
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…

> provided this notice appears in all copies.

A derivative isn't generally a copy. Which is one of the weaknesses of the ISC license that doesn't appear in either the N-Clause BSD licenses or the MIT license.

Because of the poor wording, permission is granted, but the notice is only required on things considered to be copies, rather than all the "children" of the original work.

You really want something like:

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

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#136

Post by alexchamberlain »

thed wrote: post #42

This article touches a point I have been wondering about regarding the Notice condition: "But web developers, as a whole, haven’t got the memo.". The JavaScript and npm ecosystem are extremely dependency-heavy. Even if you only take a few yourself, the number of sub-dependencies of even a simple application are often in the hundreds. Why does "everyone" ignore the attribution of their dependencies and sub-dependencie…

Are their product/business owners aware of the legal obligations that their developers are signing them up for? Do the developers actually have the authority to enter into these licences?

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#137

Post by Doxin »

IshKebab wrote: post #61
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?

He's saying that if you depend on A and A depends on B and they're both MIT licensed then technically you should include the licenses for A and B on your site, but most people only include A.

Surely the MIT license only mentions leaving the notice intact, It doesn't say anything about including the notice on your website.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#138

Post by torstenvl »

shakna wrote: post #135
torstenvl wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> provided this notice appears in all copies. A derivative isn't generally a copy. Which is one of the weaknesses of the ISC license that doesn't appear in either the N-Clause BSD licenses or the MIT license. Because of the poor wording, permission is granted, but the notice is only required on things considered to be copies, rather than all the "children" of the original work. You really want something like: > The a…

You seem to be claiming that modified copies and partial copies are not copies for the purpose of copyright law. Do you have any case law to support that position?

See Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 291 (3d Cir. 1991), cert. denied 502 U.S. 939 (1991); Madrid v. Chronicle Books, Pixar, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1237 n. 5 (D. Wyo. 2002); Micro Consulting, Inc. v. Zubeldia, 813 F. Supp. 1514, 1531 (W.D.Okla. 1990)("a derivative work does not [implicate the underlying copyright] unless it has been substantially copied from the preexisting work" (emphasis added)).

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#139

Post by shakna »

torstenvl wrote: post #138
shakna wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> provided this notice appears in all copies. A derivative isn't generally a copy. Which is one of the weaknesses of the ISC license that doesn't appear in either the N-Clause BSD licenses or the MIT license. Because of the poor wording, permission is granted, but the notice is only required on things considered to be copies, rather than all the "children" of the original work. You really want something like: > The a…

You seem to be claiming that modified copies and partial copies are not copies for the purpose of copyright law. Do you have any case law to support that position? See Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 291 (3d Cir. 1991), cert. denied 502 U.S. 939 (1991); Madrid v. Chronicle Books, Pixar, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1237 n. 5 (D. Wyo. 2002); Micro Consulting, Inc. v. Zubeldia, 813 F. Supp. 1514,…

"substantially" is the keyword that should have been emphasised there, and is actually in my post in the above and the wording that was used.

This is because when it comes to copyright law there _is_ such a thing as something being too insubstantial to be considered copyright infringement. "de minimis" falls under fair use.

> You seem to be claiming that modified copies and partial copies are not copies for the purpose of copyright law.

Lets break it down a little bit more clearly:

> Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this work for any purpose is hereby granted, provided this notice appears in all copies.

+ You are granted the permission to modify.

+ You must provide the notice in all copies.

If a work is substantially modified from the original, such that it constitutes a new work, it would no longer be considered a copy of the original, which is why you are now granted copyright on the new work at all:

> "Unless sufficient of the pre-existing work is contained in the later work so as to constitute the latter an infringement of the former, the latter by definition is not a derivative work." 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 8.09[A], p. 8-138 (2004); see Litchfield v.Spielberg

If you arrive at this point, where you are no longer a derivative because of the substantial divergence from the original work, it may no longer be considered a copy under copyright law.

For a random example from software, the source code for "alpine" the mail client, and "nano" the text editor have an undisputed shared origin, but arguing that they share substantial similarities today would actually be a difficult case to present.

The permission to modify has allowed you to create this new work, but you are no longer required to show the notice, because what you have is no longer a copy.

Whereas the wording in license such as the 3-Clause BSD license:

> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

Do not allow you to differentiate between a new work and a copy, and close shut that particular escape hatch.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#140

Post by ghaff »

NewJazz wrote: post #134
avhon1 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What is the advantage of mentioning patents? I would rather not speak on that so 0BSD and Unlicense are nice.

The theory is presumably that better to explicitly state that you won't assert patent rights against users of the software rather on rely on implicit patent grants. Plenty of IP lawyers are fine with the implicit patent grant in something like the MIT license but there's also a school of thought that, if you intend to grant a right, why not say you are so there's no question for lawyers to debate over.
Post reply on HN