4 ms·
> So, Question 1: are their contributions automatically licensed under the same MIT license as the original repository? (Note that their fork, which I'm being a
by rectang 5y ago
> So, Question 1: are their contributions automatically licensed under the same MIT license as the original repository? (Note that their fork, which I'm being asked to merge, contains the identical license file.)
Yes — that is the common understanding, a foundation upon which vast amounts of collaborative Open Source projects are built.
> Question 2: have they (almost certainly inadvertently) assigned copyright over their changes to me? (They're asking me to merge changes from a repository which contains a copyright declaration in my name.)
No. Copyright assignment is involved and needs more than that incidental quirk of that copyright notice in the MIT license template (which is confusing).
> I'd love to hear an informed legal analysis of their differences.
Go with a standard, popular FOSS license. Avoid "crayon licenses" which are poorly drafted, because they lead to legally ambiguous situations which serve both users and contributors poorly. Resist the urge to cut your nose off to spite your face by adopting a purposefully rebellious license.
The original JSON license is the crayon license whose flaws are easiest to understand. It contains the phrase "shall be used for Good, not Evil", which begs the question "who decides what's evil?" and opens up any user to a potential lawsuit.
The OSI ultimately approved the Unlicense, but with a critique. It's flaws are not as easy to understand as those of the JSON license, but here you go:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-June/004890.html https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists....
> There is general agreement that the document is poorly drafted. It is an attempt to dedicate a work to the public domain (which, taken alone, would not be approved as an open source license) but it also has wording commonly used for license grants. There was some discussion about the legal effectiveness of the document, in particular how it would operate in a jurisdiction where one cannot dedicate a work to the public domain. The lawyers who opined on the issue, both US and non-US, agreed that the document would most likely be interpreted as a license and that the license met the OSD. It is therefore recommended for approval.
- chrismorgan 5y agoThe real kicker in OSI’s judgement of Unlicense is that it seems that the only reason they approved it is because it was written so badly that it failed in its goal of being a public domain dedication, and will probably be interpreted as a license instead. (That’s how I read their wording, which is very slightly ambiguous, but seems to be talking about the document as a whole rather than just the intended fallback license aspects.)
- ensignavenger 5y agoThe Unlicense doesn't even resolve the questions OP has any differently than the MIT license or any other standard Open Source license would. What I usually do for the copyright attribution on my own projects is "Copyright My Name and Contributors". That makes it clearer that there may be contributions from others merged into the code and I'm not claiming copyright over everything.
- NoGravitas 5y ago> The original JSON license is the crayon license whose flaws are easiest to understand. It contains the phrase "shall be used for Good, not Evil", which begs the question "who decides what's evil?" and opens up any user to a potential lawsuit. I personally like the FOAF license, which is like the original JSON license, but specifies that "what's evil" is determined by the originator of the project.
- Anon1096 5y agoI would not consider that an open source license, and it's almost no different than a proprietary license.
- rectang 5y agoAgreed. Specifically, that's not compatible with the Open Source Definition section 6. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
- NoGravitas 5y agoIt is not intended to be an open source license. Ethical source licenses in general do not respect "Freedom Zero" of open source.
- ta988 5y agoThis opens the door for the originator to change their mind. So pretty much the opposite of a legal document where it is tried to make things unambiguous (of course there are exceptions and failures to do that)
- NoGravitas 5y agoYes, that's why it's called the FOAF (Fuck Around and Find Out) license. Do you feel lucky?
- tzs 5y ago> Copyright assignment is involved and needs more than that incidental quirk of that copyright notice in the MIT license template. To elaborate on "is involved", you need to have it in writing that you are transferring ownership and that has to be signed. See 17 USC 104 [1] and/or page 3 of the "Copyright Basics" circular [2] from the US Copyright Office. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/204 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/204 [2] https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-assignment.html https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-assignment.html
- riedel 5y agoBTW: as a German I cannot transfer the German equivalent to copyright ("creator's right" would be the literal translation) at all. Any transfer is indeed licencing (the equivalent to copyright transfer would be exclusive licencing).