3 ms·
Already stumbled on the first paragraph: > Choosing a license has always been easy: MIT. It’s the best-known “do what you want” plain language license. Arguabl
by runxel 7y ago
Already stumbled on the first paragraph:
> Choosing a license has always been easy: MIT. It’s the best-known “do what you want” plain language license. Arguably ISC is slightly better [...]
Umh, how exactly? ISC and MIT are functionally equivalent, which really means there are no differences.
Anyway, I agree that choosing a license is often very hard for reasons stated in this post. I'm wondering why nobody ever made a license Martin would describe as perfect.
(But I am aware it's really hard to make a water-tight license, since nowadays it has to work worlwide, which will need some ugly language since the European and Anglo-American laws are so different.)
- Carpetsmoker 7y agoYeah, functionally they're identical but the ISC is slightly shorter and slightly more readable.
- tzs 7y ago> ISC and MIT are functionally equivalent, which really means there are no differences. ISC> [...] use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software [...] MIT> [...] use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software [...] Note that MIT includes "sublicense". ISC does not. This is a big difference. See page 87 in chapter 5 of Rosen's "Open Source Licensing" book [1] for a discussion of the importance of this. [1] https://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm https://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
- paulddraper 7y agoPerhaps that is simply length/readability?