3 ms·
Does it? I wasn't aware of that. Nowhere does it specify that just the source code is protected by it, it refers only to 'Software' which includes relevant docu
by brandonjm 9y ago
Does it? I wasn't aware of that. Nowhere does it specify that just the source code is protected by it, it refers only to 'Software' which includes relevant documentation and I assume, the compiled version of the software. If I included a compiled version of an MIT licensed library in an application I was under the impression that I would need to include that copyright alongside my own as I could be distributing, selling or sub-licensing the library (all of which are explicitly covered by MIT).
Regardless, nowhere in the MIT license does it specify that the concept cannot be replicated by someone else using entirely new code. By making it open source he left himself open to a larger company redeveloping the idea and making money off of it.
- viraptor 9y agoYeah, I wasn't precise. Software in whatever form it's applicable in that case, not just source code itself. But my point was what you say - the license didn't cover the implemented idea.
- mankash666 9y ago"the license didn't cover the implemented idea." What does that even mean? Software==ideas in code/boost form.
- viraptor 9y agoIt means that if you implement Foo and give it whatever license, I can implement something that works exactly like Foo, call it Bar, and release it under whatever other license I want. Patents cover ideas, licences cover actual implementation. That's why ReactOS and Windows are both legal under different licenses, even though they try to implement the same thing.