The MIT License, Line by Line • Hacker News Board

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#101

Post by smlckz » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 9:19 PM UTC

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 blessing?

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#102

Post by a1369209993 » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 9:25 PM UTC

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.

> By definition, we cannot have all elements be above average: at least one has to be below.

Ludicrously pedantic nitpick: this only applies to finite sets - consider the sequence 1,1/2,1/3,1/4,... (the harmonic series). The average (mean, median, mode[0]) is (depending on how pedantic you want to be) either 0 or 0+ε[1], but in any case strictly less than any positive real number, while every element of the sequence is a positive real number.

So it's not true by definition; it's a consequence of the basic sanity constraints that you're working with.

0: Strictly speaking mode only applies to continuous ditributions (ie, with a continuous probability density function) or fully discrete distibutions (eg heads vs tails), but 0 is the only (real number) x such that for any sufficiently small positive distance δ, the number of elements in x±δ is strictly greater than the number in x±2δ but not in x±δ (namely, all but a finite number of the inifitely many elements in x±2δ are also in x±δ).

1: Where ε is some surreal number[2] strictly less than any positive real number, but not necessarily 1/ω specifically.

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#103

Post by ghaff » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 9:26 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #4

lekevicius wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like anything in the license has changed since late 80s.

That's not quite true. Sometime in the 1990s, before the OSI version became the canonical one, it seems to have morphed from a variant of the X Consortium license to the ECMA license. [1] But, yes, nothing has changed in the past 20 years. [1] https://opensource.com/article/19/4/history-mit-license

Duh, that should be Expat license, not ECMA.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#104

Post by qwertygnu » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 9:32 PM UTC

grae_euler wrote: post #98

Does anyone know of a similar breakdown for licences like GPL v2 and the like? It's a part of programming I feel like I should know more about but never took the time to look at.

Linked on the first line of the article:

https://writing.kemitchell.com/series/line-by-line.html

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#105

Post by phkahler » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 9:34 PM UTC

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.

>> It seems to be a bizarrely common (and obviously incorrect) meme on HN that half of all elements of a set are below average.

When is that not the case? I'll grant you that not all distributions are "normal" distributions, so when is it not the case that 40 percent are not below average?

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#106

Post by lytedev » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 9:36 PM UTC

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…

Probably to clarify against exclusive or?

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#107

Post by ignoramous » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 9:41 PM UTC

grae_euler wrote: post #98

Does anyone know of a similar breakdown for licences like GPL v2 and the like? It's a part of programming I feel like I should know more about but never took the time to look at.

Needs a new edition but comprehensive enough for GPLv2: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-open-sour...

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#108

Post by mytailorisrich » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 9:42 PM UTC

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.

That's because the world is too complex and nuanced for such strict cutoffs to be stipulated in law. Just the number of products on the market is huge and changes all the time.

The law therefore specifies things in general terms and uses 'reasonableness', or "fitness for purpose", or what would be expected by an "average bystander" (in English law), etc. in the same way this piece of legislation does.

This allows courts and juries to then make a judgement on the infinite number of particular cases that get before them.

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#109

Post by jedimastert » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 9:55 PM UTC

qwertygnu wrote: post #104

grae_euler wrote: post #98

Does anyone know of a similar breakdown for licences like GPL v2 and the like? It's a part of programming I feel like I should know more about but never took the time to look at.

Linked on the first line of the article: https://writing.kemitchell.com/series/line-by-line.html

Contains a post about the AGPL, which specifically does not go into detail about the GPL but just the difference between them.

Not super helpful

Re: The MIT License, Line by Line

#110

Post by danaliv » Sun, Jan 31, 2021, 10:16 PM UTC

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?

We’re in English class, not math class. Forget statistics. There is a sense of the word “average” that means “not out of the ordinary; common.” That’s the sense meant here.