4 ms·

> In particular, whats to stop ME from grabbing the code, and then giving it to Microsoft? IANAL, but this other part of the MIT License [0] would require you

> In particular, whats to stop ME from grabbing the code, and then giving it to Microsoft? IANAL, but this other part of the MIT License [0] would require you to include the restriction in the copy you give to Microsoft, wouldn't it? > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > what enforcement mechanism do you plan if you ever discover that Microsoft is using your code? I suspect the idea is, if this restriction is used widely enough, Microsoft themselves will have their legal department be sure to restrict usage of the given packages purely as a CYA move. Similar to how so many companies are allergic to the AGPL. 0: https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

dragontamer 8y ago
IANAL either. But... > Permission is hereby granted, to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software I mean, I've seen successful copyleft done before (ex: GPL). Generally speaking, you start by using a copyleft license as a base... unless you have lawyers of your own to do it correctly for you. An MIT license is incredibly free, basically one step away from public domain. I apparently have the right to modify and sublicense Lerna. So... I could in theory, provide "Dragontamer Lerna" to Microsoft. Again, IANAL, but these are the reasons why GNU worked very hard on their copyleft license. > I suspect the idea is, if this restriction is used widely enough, Microsoft themselves will have their legal department be sure to restrict usage of the given packages purely as a CYA move. Similar to how so many companies are allergic to the AGPL. But AGPL is at least copyleft and "legally viral" in nature. I'm not sure if MIT is a viral license.

dragontamer 8y ago

IANAL either. But... > Permission is hereby granted, to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software I mean, I've seen successful copyleft done before (ex: GPL). Generally speaking, you start by using a copyleft license as a base... unless you have lawyers of your own to do it correctly for you. An MIT license is incredibly free, basically one step away from public domain. I apparently have the right to modify and sublicense Lerna. So... I could in theory, provide "Dragontamer Lerna" to Microsoft. Again, IANAL, but these are the reasons why GNU worked very hard on their copyleft license. > I suspect the idea is, if this restriction is used widely enough, Microsoft themselves will have their legal department be sure to restrict usage of the given packages purely as a CYA move. Similar to how so many companies are allergic to the AGPL. But AGPL is at least copyleft and "legally viral" in nature. I'm not sure if MIT is a viral license.