4 ms·
It's still the MIT license for other people though. Licenses are a contract between a licensor and and a licensee. OSS requires the Licensor to provides the lic
by roblabla 8y ago
It's still the MIT license for other people though. Licenses are a contract between a licensor and and a licensee. OSS requires the Licensor to provides the license in a non-discriminating way, and some licenses, like the GPL, explicitly enforce this. But the MIT license itself has no such provision. You could license a project with MIT to user A, and not to user B.
This is all just rule-bending though. I'm very conflicted on this issue. On one part, I agree with the sentiment that this is against the spirit of open source. On the other hand, I do like to see the software community taking a political stance, and using action in an attempt to enact change, on such issues.
- leereeves 8y agoIt's not the MIT license for other people if it doesn't allow those other people to distribute it as they choose (including giving it to ICE).
- bdhess 8y agoStrangely, ICE itself isn’t on their list.
- jdminhbg 8y ago> It's still the MIT license for other people though. But doesn't that imply that other people could redistribute to any of the companies on the list? So it's either not MIT, or it's pointless.
- vsl 8y ago"MIT license for other people" is not the MIT license. It's no longer Open Source.