4 ms·

Why is there ''and/or'' in the MIT license text? Why is it needed? Does the phrase ''this permission notice'' cover the following disclaimer? Also, what is th

by smlckz 6y ago

Why is there ''and/or'' in the MIT license text? Why is it needed? Does the phrase ''this permission notice'' cover the following disclaimer? Also, what is the shortest possible license that is functionally equivalent to the MIT license? The shortest ''license'' I've ever seen is this: https://git.suckless.org/dmenu/file/arg.h.html https://git.suckless.org/dmenu/file/arg.h.html /* * Copy me if you can. * by 20h */ Is this really a license? What about the SQLite blessing?

lytedev 6y ago
Probably to clarify against exclusive or?
TwoPizza9612536 6y ago
The "and" means include and the "or" means optional. It needed because it basically states your rights on what you can do with the software and means you can distribute if you choose to distribute the software, it your choice or right to distribute the software (from the MIT License). The phrase "this permission notice" also cover the "NO WARRANTY" disclaimer for the software because you will have to include the license if you use it in another software but you can provide warranty under a close source license or your license states you will provide warranties. The "copyright notice" and "this permission notice" means the license. The shortest possible license that is functionally equivalent to the MIT license is the ISC license, it was created to remove language that is not needed. Read the Wikipedia article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license. I do not know other licenses than this. Technically it is a license but do not use it and it is just probably a joke. The SQL Blessing is technically probably a Public Domain waver. This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer.
torstenvl 6y ago
I use a minimal version of the ISC/OpenBSD license. - I don't know of anything in the Berne Convention or Title 17, U.S. Code, that would require the phrase "with or without fee" so I remove it. - I use "work" instead of "software." There's no reason to be over-specific. - I treat the entire text as one notice, rather than specifying each paragraph separately. Copyright (c) 2021, MyOrganization THIS WORK IS PROVIDED "AS IS," WITH NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES. THERE IS NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, OR TITLE. NO AUTHOR SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES RELATING TO USE OF THIS WORK. Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this work for any purpose is hereby granted, provided this notice appears in all copies.
- shakna 6y ago
  > provided this notice appears in all copies. A derivative isn't generally a copy. Which is one of the weaknesses of the ISC license that doesn't appear in either the N-Clause BSD licenses or the MIT license. Because of the poor wording, permission is granted, but the notice is only required on things considered to be copies, rather than all the "children" of the original work. You really want something like: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the work.
  - torstenvl 6y ago
    You seem to be claiming that modified copies and partial copies are not copies for the purpose of copyright law. Do you have any case law to support that position? See Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 291 (3d Cir. 1991), cert. denied 502 U.S. 939 (1991); Madrid v. Chronicle Books, Pixar, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1237 n. 5 (D. Wyo. 2002); Micro Consulting, Inc. v. Zubeldia, 813 F. Supp. 1514, 1531 (W.D.Okla. 1990)("a derivative work does not [implicate the underlying copyright] unless it has been substantially copied from the preexisting work" (emphasis added)).
    - shakna 6y ago
      "substantially" is the keyword that should have been emphasised there, and is actually in my post in the above and the wording that was used. This is because when it comes to copyright law there _is_ such a thing as something being too insubstantial to be considered copyright infringement. "de minimis" falls under fair use. > You seem to be claiming that modified copies and partial copies are not copies for the purpose of copyright law. Lets break it down a little bit more clearly: > Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this work for any purpose is hereby granted, provided this notice appears in all copies. + You are granted the permission to modify. + You must provide the notice in all copies. If a work is substantially modified from the original, such that it constitutes a new work, it would no longer be considered a copy of the original, which is why you are now granted copyright on the new work at all: > "Unless sufficient of the pre-existing work is contained in the later work so as to constitute the latter an infringement of the former, the latter by definition is not a derivative work." 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 8.09[A], p. 8-138 (2004); see Litchfield v.Spielberg If you arrive at this point, where you are no longer a derivative because of the substantial divergence from the original work, it may no longer be considered a copy under copyright law. For a random example from software, the source code for "alpine" the mail client, and "nano" the text editor have an undisputed shared origin, but arguing that they share substantial similarities today would actually be a difficult case to present. The permission to modify has allowed you to create this new work, but you are no longer required to show the notice, because what you have is no longer a copy. Whereas the wording in license such as the 3-Clause BSD license: > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Do not allow you to differentiate between a new work and a copy, and close shut that particular escape hatch.
kemitchell 6y ago
> Why is there ''and/or'' in the MIT license text? Why is it needed? It's a stupid lawyer thing. A lot of us still write like this. I'm sorry. > Does the phrase ''this permission notice'' cover the following disclaimer? Arguable, but why would anyone bother chopping off the disclaimer? > Also, what is the shortest possible license that is functionally equivalent to the MIT license? Form and function aren't so neatly separated in natural language. > Is this really a license? It's a cute suckless thing. They're edgy like that, among other ways. > What about the SQLite blessing? SQLite holds their work out as in the public domain. But you can buy a license (and some commercial guarantees) to make your company's lawyers happy: https://sqlite.org/purchase/license https://sqlite.org/purchase/license
- smlckz 6y ago
  Another stupid question: under what terms the licenses themselves are licensed? It is very clear in the Blue Oak Model license page. But what about all of these licenses like MIT, ISC, BSDs etc.? Last question, how much change in the software allowes me to add my name and where to add it, before or after original author(s)?

by smlckz 6y ago

lytedev 6y ago

Probably to clarify against exclusive or?

TwoPizza9612536 6y ago

The "and" means include and the "or" means optional. It needed because it basically states your rights on what you can do with the software and means you can distribute if you choose to distribute the software, it your choice or right to distribute the software (from the MIT License). The phrase "this permission notice" also cover the "NO WARRANTY" disclaimer for the software because you will have to include the license if you use it in another software but you can provide warranty under a close source license or your license states you will provide warranties. The "copyright notice" and "this permission notice" means the license. The shortest possible license that is functionally equivalent to the MIT license is the ISC license, it was created to remove language that is not needed. Read the Wikipedia article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license. I do not know other licenses than this. Technically it is a license but do not use it and it is just probably a joke. The SQL Blessing is technically probably a Public Domain waver. This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer.

torstenvl 6y ago

I use a minimal version of the ISC/OpenBSD license. - I don't know of anything in the Berne Convention or Title 17, U.S. Code, that would require the phrase "with or without fee" so I remove it. - I use "work" instead of "software." There's no reason to be over-specific. - I treat the entire text as one notice, rather than specifying each paragraph separately. Copyright (c) 2021, MyOrganization THIS WORK IS PROVIDED "AS IS," WITH NO EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES. THERE IS NO WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, OR TITLE. NO AUTHOR SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES RELATING TO USE OF THIS WORK. Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this work for any purpose is hereby granted, provided this notice appears in all copies.

shakna 6y ago
> provided this notice appears in all copies. A derivative isn't generally a copy. Which is one of the weaknesses of the ISC license that doesn't appear in either the N-Clause BSD licenses or the MIT license. Because of the poor wording, permission is granted, but the notice is only required on things considered to be copies, rather than all the "children" of the original work. You really want something like: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the work.
- torstenvl 6y ago
  You seem to be claiming that modified copies and partial copies are not copies for the purpose of copyright law. Do you have any case law to support that position? See Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc., 930 F.2d 277, 291 (3d Cir. 1991), cert. denied 502 U.S. 939 (1991); Madrid v. Chronicle Books, Pixar, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1237 n. 5 (D. Wyo. 2002); Micro Consulting, Inc. v. Zubeldia, 813 F. Supp. 1514, 1531 (W.D.Okla. 1990)("a derivative work does not [implicate the underlying copyright] unless it has been substantially copied from the preexisting work" (emphasis added)).
  - shakna 6y ago
    "substantially" is the keyword that should have been emphasised there, and is actually in my post in the above and the wording that was used. This is because when it comes to copyright law there _is_ such a thing as something being too insubstantial to be considered copyright infringement. "de minimis" falls under fair use. > You seem to be claiming that modified copies and partial copies are not copies for the purpose of copyright law. Lets break it down a little bit more clearly: > Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this work for any purpose is hereby granted, provided this notice appears in all copies. + You are granted the permission to modify. + You must provide the notice in all copies. If a work is substantially modified from the original, such that it constitutes a new work, it would no longer be considered a copy of the original, which is why you are now granted copyright on the new work at all: > "Unless sufficient of the pre-existing work is contained in the later work so as to constitute the latter an infringement of the former, the latter by definition is not a derivative work." 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 8.09[A], p. 8-138 (2004); see Litchfield v.Spielberg If you arrive at this point, where you are no longer a derivative because of the substantial divergence from the original work, it may no longer be considered a copy under copyright law. For a random example from software, the source code for "alpine" the mail client, and "nano" the text editor have an undisputed shared origin, but arguing that they share substantial similarities today would actually be a difficult case to present. The permission to modify has allowed you to create this new work, but you are no longer required to show the notice, because what you have is no longer a copy. Whereas the wording in license such as the 3-Clause BSD license: > 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Do not allow you to differentiate between a new work and a copy, and close shut that particular escape hatch.

kemitchell 6y ago

> Why is there ''and/or'' in the MIT license text? Why is it needed? It's a stupid lawyer thing. A lot of us still write like this. I'm sorry. > Does the phrase ''this permission notice'' cover the following disclaimer? Arguable, but why would anyone bother chopping off the disclaimer? > Also, what is the shortest possible license that is functionally equivalent to the MIT license? Form and function aren't so neatly separated in natural language. > Is this really a license? It's a cute suckless thing. They're edgy like that, among other ways. > What about the SQLite blessing? SQLite holds their work out as in the public domain. But you can buy a license (and some commercial guarantees) to make your company's lawyers happy: https://sqlite.org/purchase/license https://sqlite.org/purchase/license

smlckz 6y ago
Another stupid question: under what terms the licenses themselves are licensed? It is very clear in the Blue Oak Model license page. But what about all of these licenses like MIT, ISC, BSDs etc.? Last question, how much change in the software allowes me to add my name and where to add it, before or after original author(s)?