4 ms·
It's not like anything in the license has changed since late 80s.
by flixic 6y ago
It's not like anything in the license has changed since late 80s.
- ghaff 6y agoThat's not quite true. Sometime in the 1990s, before the OSI version became the canonical one, it seems to have morphed from a variant of the X Consortium license to the ECMA license. [1] But, yes, nothing has changed in the past 20 years. [1] https://opensource.com/article/19/4/history-mit-license https://opensource.com/article/19/4/history-mit-license
- ghaff 6y agoDuh, that should be Expat license, not ECMA.
- aklemm 6y agoAt risk of piling on, it is silly to cargo-cult dating articles. This is a case where the date truly is not relevant, and that should be recognized. That's a minor point compared to the larger phenomenon which is the insistence on recency for our attention. Why? Probably because the long tail isn't profitable enough, but it is a shame every portal onto the 'net except archive.org and wikipedia.org insist on recency for relevance.
- detaro 6y agoProviding a date for context is not "insisting on recency for relevance", it's providing context. Even if that context is just that some people recognize "ok, that's the article I read a while back and not an updated version".
- shawnz 6y agoIn fact the author did later post a follow-up highly critical of the MIT license, recommending their own creation instead: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/09/Deprecation-Notice...