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

141–148 of 148 posts

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#141

Post by torstenvl »

shakna wrote: post #139
torstenvl wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 purpo…

So... no then.

And if it is "no longer a derivative because of the substantial divergence from the original work" -- the situation where you have a problem with the ISC language -- then what right under 17 U.S.C. § 106 is implicated?

You can't have it both ways. Under situations involving copies of my work, the ISC license works fine. Under situations not involving copies of any my work within the meaning of copyright law, then copyright law has no applicability.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#142

Post by sbergot »

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…

Webpack keeps the licenses when outputting bundles. Given the popularity of this tool a lot of people are respecting the attribution clause.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#143

Post by sbergot »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #133
cyral wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Webpack definitely keeps the license headers even when minification is on. They have to start with something like "@license".

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#144

Post by sbergot »

Doxin wrote: post #137
IshKebab wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

If you are using some js library with the MIT license in your frontend then you are distributing a copy of the software. You have to include the notice somewhere on your website (typically next to the library)

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#145

Post by 7402 »

kemitchell wrote: post #94
tomcam wrote: post #91

Until 5 minutes ago, I thought myself pretty copyright-savvy. I've spent perhaps $200,000 on IP attorneys over the last couple of decades--far more than most HNers, far less than many others. I also follow IP law loosely because it interests me. Turns out I'm still a tyro.

For what it's worth, the author of the post has a lot to learn, too.

Aside from my enjoyment of the subtle humor expressed in the above comment, I find it interesting that there was no way to express either approval or disapproval of it without that action being subject to misinterpretation. I sat frozen for two minutes, mouse poised above the up and down triangles, unable to act. An appreciative reply seemed to be the only way out. Bravo.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#146

Post by Doxin »

sbergot wrote: post #144
Doxin wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." If you are using some js library with the MIT license in your frontend then you are distributing a copy of the software. You have to include the notice somewhere on your website (typically next to the library)

People viewing your website don't get a copy of the software, nor do they get a substantial portion. The MIT license (like most licenses) applies to the code, not to what that code produces.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#147

Post by b112 »

Doxin wrote: post #146
sbergot wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." If you are using some js library with the MIT license in your frontend then you are distributing a copy of the software. You have to include the notice somewhere on your website (typically next to the library)

People viewing your website don't get a copy of the software, nor do they get a substantial portion. The MIT license (like most licenses) applies to the code, not to what that code produces.

If people are downloading the source, and executing that code, eg as parent said "frontend", then yes, it's on their computer. It's not server side, such as with PH, or python or backend js.

However, the license doesn't have to appear on the website portion specifically highlighted for human viewing. It merely needs to exist, say, at the top of every javascript file.

Or a link to where the text form of the license is.

Just because it's inconvenient, and just because people are ignoring it, doesn't mean it's being done as it should be...

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#148

Post by Doxin »

b112 wrote: post #147
Doxin wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People viewing your website don't get a copy of the software, nor do they get a substantial portion. The MIT license (like most licenses) applies to the code, not to what that code produces.

If people are downloading the source, and executing that code, eg as parent said "frontend", then yes, it's on their computer. It's not server side, such as with PH, or python or backend js. However, the license doesn't have to appear on the website portion specifically highlighted for human viewing. It merely needs to exist, say, at the top of every javascript file. Or a link to where the text form of the license is…

My point is that if you install the code through a dependency of a dependency it should be leaving license notices entirely intact, fulfilling the license.

Of course javascript optimizers and the like might throw a wrench in the works these days, but that's a pretty recent and specific problem.

Post reply on HN