6 ms·
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. What’s the reasoning behind as
by systemvoltage 6y ago
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
What’s the reasoning behind asking users to carry around a notice? Why not just let users go without it? Is it for legal reasons or for crediting the authors? I’ve released MIT licensed software before and frankly when someone is using my code, I really don’t care about credit or leaving behind a legacy or such things.
- ghaff 6y agoUnderstanding the license in use and the permissions associated with it are important in many contexts. In fact, the MIT license was created in the first place because there were issues associated with just releasing X Windows into the public domain.
- sidpatil 6y agoThis line confused me for a while, because it looked like a copyleft provision to me.
- CameronNemo 6y agoIs requiring attribution copyleft? I thought copyleft implied needing to make source code available.
- TwoPizza9612536 6y agoJust needing attribution is not copyleft, you are giving credit to the original author. Share-Alike or using the same license to make source code available like GPL is copyleft.
- systemvoltage 6y agoIt's not copy left, but users have the right to see the license "tree" if you will of all the things you've built your code with. I think, as others have pointed out in the replies, 0BSD or MIT-0 is more suitable for me.
- sidpatil 6y ago> I think, as others have pointed out in the replies, 0BSD or MIT-0 is more suitable for me. Why not go with [CC0] in that case? It's a lot more robust, and recommended by the FSF over options like the Unlicense. [CC0] https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
- CameronNemo 6y agoWhere is the FSF recommendation? And did they only consider unlicense?
- jacobr1 6y agohttps://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0
- ghaff 6y agoNote that the OSI does not recommend CC0 however because of its patent language. [1] The OSI didn't reject it but the license was withdrawn after it was presumably clear that it would not be approved. [1] https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero
- torstenvl 6y agoI can't imagine using CC0 under any circumstances. If you're in the U.S., commit to public domain. If you aren't, then veering way off into contract law instead of copyright law is distinctly unhelpful. There isn't a Berne Convention to cross-level contract law.
- tordanik 6y agoOne of the main reasons why I find the CC0 attractive is that it can be used, and is widely used, for works other than software. As a result, it seems to have better name recognition, especially outside of programmer circles, and it's nice to be able to use a single legal text for software that also contains images, audio, or similar assets. (Slapping software licenses onto media files impedes their re-use outside the context of that particular software project.) Is there an alternative you'd recommend?
- CameronNemo 6y agoFWIW, the 0BSD license omits this line and has been OSI approved.
- ghaff 6y agoThe MIT No Attribution License (MIT-0) is also OSI approved now which is effectively a public domain license. The caveat is that it won't be an approved license at a lot of companies, both because it's new and because many companies shy away from public domain software.
- rectang 6y agoMy understanding is that companies are leery of public domain because it means disclaiming copyright. It looks to me as though with MIT-0 you still retain copyright and are just granting an extremely liberal license? That may prove to be a distinction without a difference if it's ever tested in court, but "giving up copyright" is scary to management so it's meaningful in practice.
- ghaff 6y agoIANAL but my understanding is you're pretty much right. The problem is that there is no standard established way to disclaim your rights. And, in continental Europe in particular, it's not totally clear that you can disclaim "moral rights" to something you've created. A lot of this is mostly theoretical legal stuff but lawyers worry about that sort of thing with the result that a lot of companies won't touch public domain software even if they know its provenance.
- avhon1 6y agoThe CC0 license and the Unlicense attempt to do this with language to the effect of: > This work is placed in the public domain. > In regions where this is not possible, the author grants unlimited license to this work. Unfortunately, the CC0 explicitly does not waive patent rights, the Unlicense doesn't mention patents at all, the Blue Oak Model License and Apache 2.0 don't attempt to place the work into the public domain, and 0BSD and MIT-0 neither address patents nor attempt to place the work into the public domain. None of these licenses aggressively waive all of the author's rights to their work; I wonder why there isn't a strong public-domain no-patents-or-anything-else license ?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- xeeeeeeeeeeenu 6y ago>I really don’t care about credit or leaving behind a legacy or such things. Then use a different license. In 1-clause BSD and Boost licenses the requirement of preserving copyright notices applies only to source code, while 0BSD and CC0 don't require that at all.
- systemvoltage 6y agoThanks. I was wondering which license actually satisfies "Don't care" philosophy and gets me out of any legal responsibility/liability.
- torstenvl 6y agoJust commit the work to the public domain then.
- jraph 6y agoNot legally possible in many jurisdictions.
- davidcuddeback 6y agoWouldn't you still need language to disclaim warranties and liabilities?
- pmoriarty 6y agoThere's also this: DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, December 2004 Copyright (C) 2004 Your Name <name@example.com> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed. DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION 0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.
- davidcuddeback 6y agoThat license doesn't seem to satisfy the parent's requirements: > gets me out of any legal responsibility/liability The license you posted doesn't disclaim any warranties or liabilities. I suggest reading what TFA's "Warranty Disclaimer" section says about UCC defaults. The way I read it (IANAL), you would have more liability with the license you posted than you would under the MIT license.
- alkonaut 6y agoHow is this “inclusion” typically done for a project that is deployed in compiled format and contains hundreds of libraries with dozens of different licenses? It must be especially difficult on devices where it’s difficult to accept user input or display licenses. In commercial desktop software I have shipped, it has been a section in help>about with a long list of third party libs each showing a text document.
- CameronNemo 6y agoI downloaded trivy (a go CLI tool) recently and they have some tooling to pack up dependency licenses and include them in the release tarball. It is possible and quite easy, if you plan ahead. Notably, Debian binary packages include extensive copyright information.
- alkonaut 6y agoBut are licenses only included in e.g a zip with binaries but not available from “within” the software counting as included/available? For anything distributed as source it’s easy enough.
- shawnz 6y agoThe article gives 3 reasons for the notice requirement right below that quote. Which ones do you disagree with?
- torstenvl 6y agoYou're removing the license in that case, which means downstream users aren't informed that they are direct licensees. It's dishonest. Additionally, the Berne Convention recognizes a "moral right" to claim authorship. https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/283698 https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/283698
- systemvoltage 6y agoThis is what I was looking for, thanks for the insight. The way I understand this - if I don't put my authorship, it becomes a liability for the users of my code since they have no traceability of where the code came from. Am I reading this right?
- torstenvl 6y agoYeah downstream users wouldn't know that the license text came from someone who can actually license it. The combination of the copyright and permission notice says "This is mine AND you can do these things with it if you want." Claiming ownership by itself does not result in it being open source. Saying you're giving permissions, but without claiming the right to be able to do so, also does not result in it being open source.
- cbhl 6y agoThe MIT license was written in the late 1980s. It was typical for software to be distributed in physical media (floppy disks, and, later, CD-ROMs) through brick-and-mortar retail stores. It was not uncommon for someone to sell physical media with otherwise-free software, and so it was desirable to make end-users aware that the software was available for free. The GPL's "accompany it with a written offer... of the corresponding source code" is also an interesting holdover from this era (nowadays everyone just distributes source over the Internet, instead of sending checks and CDs through the mail). Copyright notices were also typically visible when you first started a program in the 80s and 90s. These were relegated to "about" menus when it became the norm to "design a launch screen that’s nearly identical to the first screen of your app" to make apps feel faster.
- kemitchell 6y agohttps://writing.kemitchell.com/2020/12/27/War-on-License-Notices.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2020/12/27/War-on-License-Not...