3 ms·
> there is not yet a clear legal consensus on it. Just curious, how did the MIT license (and similar) achieve legal consensus? Was it "bootstrapped"? > Howeve
by mholt 8y ago
> there is not yet a clear legal consensus on it.
Just curious, how did the MIT license (and similar) achieve legal consensus? Was it "bootstrapped"?
> However, if I want to use anything not already on the list it requires a manual approval process from the legal department, which is usually time consuming, and often just results in a 'no' because they are too risk averse to asses the licenses properly themselves
Similarly, how do licenses get approved in the first place?
If MIT et al. overcame these hurdles, how do new licenses do it? Just by being used, and through the passage of time?
- brudgers 8y agoThe MIT license goes back to 1988. A simpler time in so far as the open source community was significantly smaller. It was attached to an important piece of software, X11. It spread organically as more and more *nix systems were deployed over the decades. Compatibility with GPL didn't hurt.
- kemitchell 8y agoI'd date what we now call "MIT" back further, to X10R3 in February of 1986. That's based on secondary sources. I'd love direct evidence if it's out there. Preferably a verified copy of the license to keep in my office. ;-)