5 ms·

The MIT License requires copies of the software to give attribution to the copyright holder, as well as the licence text. Though it is a very permissive licenc

by ldjb 8y ago

The MIT License requires copies of the software to give attribution to the copyright holder, as well as the licence text. Though it is a very permissive licence, this does pose some barrier to using the software. Some companies are averse to using software they need to provide attribution for, but would not mind using software that is in the public domain. Releasing software to the public domain ensures that as many people as possible can make maximum use of it. That's not to say it's better to release software to the public domain over using a permissive licence. It really depends on the terms under which the developer wants people to use the software.

chii 8y ago
> Some companies are averse to using software they need to provide attribution for why would that be? They certainly already need to put in a license page/dialog/display somewhere, so it makes so little difference adding an extra piece of text there.
- ghaff 8y ago
  Perhaps because it can be error-prone to keep attributions together with the thing requiring attribution. This is certainly an issue with things like photos and Creative Commons. Anyone who uses CC-BY-SA photos in presentations knows very well that, as photos get reused and mixed in different presentations, it's very easy to end up dropping a credit somewhere. I know I try hard not to do so, but I'm sure I still miss things from time to time.
MattSteelblade 8y ago
Licensing is not that simple. From the Creative Commons CC0 page. "Dedicating works to the public domain is difficult if not impossible for those wanting to contribute their works for public use before applicable copyright or database protection terms expire. Few if any jurisdictions have a process for doing so easily and reliably. Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to what rights are automatically granted and how and when they expire or may be voluntarily relinquished. More challenging yet, many legal systems effectively prohibit any attempt by these owners to surrender rights automatically conferred by law, particularly moral rights, even when the author wishing to do so is well informed and resolute about doing so and contributing their work to the public domain."[1] As an aside, I have no sympathy for companies that would refuse to use software licensed under MIT because they need to provide attribution. [1] https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0 https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc...
- nbsd4life 8y ago
  I don't see people dropping sqlite en masse.
  - MattSteelblade 8y ago
    I'm not sure how to interpret this comment. If you're making a reference to SQLite being in the Public Domain, there's a page on SQLite's website for organizations to purchase a Warranty of Title, which shows organizations can be skittish about anything.[1] Are you referring to a program that is being dropped because it's not in the Public Domain? If so, I am for an example. As a potential counterexample, I am not aware of a drop of usage on, say, cURL, which is widely distributed by countless organizations and which uses the MIT license. [1] https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html

by ldjb 8y ago

chii 8y ago

> Some companies are averse to using software they need to provide attribution for why would that be? They certainly already need to put in a license page/dialog/display somewhere, so it makes so little difference adding an extra piece of text there.

ghaff 8y ago
Perhaps because it can be error-prone to keep attributions together with the thing requiring attribution. This is certainly an issue with things like photos and Creative Commons. Anyone who uses CC-BY-SA photos in presentations knows very well that, as photos get reused and mixed in different presentations, it's very easy to end up dropping a credit somewhere. I know I try hard not to do so, but I'm sure I still miss things from time to time.

MattSteelblade 8y ago

Licensing is not that simple. From the Creative Commons CC0 page. "Dedicating works to the public domain is difficult if not impossible for those wanting to contribute their works for public use before applicable copyright or database protection terms expire. Few if any jurisdictions have a process for doing so easily and reliably. Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to what rights are automatically granted and how and when they expire or may be voluntarily relinquished. More challenging yet, many legal systems effectively prohibit any attempt by these owners to surrender rights automatically conferred by law, particularly moral rights, even when the author wishing to do so is well informed and resolute about doing so and contributing their work to the public domain."[1] As an aside, I have no sympathy for companies that would refuse to use software licensed under MIT because they need to provide attribution. [1] https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0 https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc...

nbsd4life 8y ago
I don't see people dropping sqlite en masse.
- MattSteelblade 8y ago
  I'm not sure how to interpret this comment. If you're making a reference to SQLite being in the Public Domain, there's a page on SQLite's website for organizations to purchase a Warranty of Title, which shows organizations can be skittish about anything.[1] Are you referring to a program that is being dropped because it's not in the Public Domain? If so, I am for an example. As a potential counterexample, I am not aware of a drop of usage on, say, cURL, which is widely distributed by countless organizations and which uses the MIT license. [1] https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html https://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html