6 ms·
[Disclaimer: not a lawyer, this is not legal advice] I understand they're trying to get rid of cascading attribution requirements for enterprise (which is part
by idealmedtech 5y ago
[Disclaimer: not a lawyer, this is not legal advice]
I understand they're trying to get rid of cascading attribution requirements for enterprise (which is part of the reason NIH syndrome became so prevalent!), BUT I really dislike this incarnation for two primary reasons:
1. It has conflicting branding. How is a newbie gonna know the difference? How many will misclick it because it sorts first, or because they don't know it's different than true MIT?
2. Some users may read 0 suffix as "original", "optimal", or "first" (0-index), further polluting the branding.
If they rereleased under another name these problems would be alleviated, but I don't think their intentions are entirely altruistic here.
- paxys 5y agoReleasing under a different name would have the opposite problem. No one would use it because they wouldn't know that it was the MIT license with the attribution condition removed, even if that was exactly what they were looking for. The 0- convention is also somewhat standard for this category of licenses (like 0BSD).
- eyelidlessness 5y agoNot a problem in actual practice, derivative licenses are commonly identified as such and their slight differences are much easier to explain than the whole of any one original license.
- idealmedtech 5y agoSee: AGPL, LGPL for very popular examples of such modifications
- Jenk 5y agoNeither of which use -0 suffix, however, which I believe to be GGGP's point.
- giancarlostoro 5y agoAGPL adds more constraints, LGPL is probably a slightly better example.
- sq_ 5y agoHa, 0BSD makes me realize they could’ve called it 0MIT, as in “omit attribution.” Would’ve been funny and arguably more understandable.
- forty 5y agoSubmit a PR!
- brian_herman 5y agoI submitted a PR if they dont accept ill just fork and have my own.
- chrisshroba 5y agoThis begs the question, do licenses have licenses?
- remram 5y agoWith "MIT" in the title, this might be a trademark issue. And to answer your question, yes, for example the GPL starts with: > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
- ksec 5y agoThis is actually a brilliant idea, may be you should submit a PR.
- tedivm 5y agoThe proliferation of BSD licenses is exactly why I use the MIT license for things.
- 8note 5y agoUsually when I see 0 tagged on something, it's actually chronologically after, but something more fundamental. The 0th law of thermodynamics is the main example
- CameronNemo 5y agoAnother good reason to throw this license in the trash and just use the older, better named 0BSD license that is shorter and has the same effect.
- schemescape 5y agoFor what it's worth, my understanding is that the 0BSD license was similarly not authored at Berkeley [1] and, more confusingly, was derived from the ISC license (not the BSD licenses) [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#0-clause_license_(%22BSD_Zero_Clause_License%22) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses#0-clause_license_... [2] https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD
- CameronNemo 5y agoYes, but the spirit of "like the BSD license, but go even further and put no conditions on it" is pretty self-evident from the name, as long as you've heard of 4/3/2/1 clause BSD licenses. I think that is worth something. Something quite marginal, to be sure. But still a nicety.
- jhardy54 5y agoThat’s correct. Rob Landley and I came up with the same license text but called it different things. I called it the Free Public License and had it approved by the OSI under that name. He called it the 0BSD, and argued that since he came up with it first then it should be given his preferred name. I think “0BSD” is an awful name for an ISC-derived license, but eventually I gave up trying to argue with him because I felt that having two names was worse than one bad name.
- ad8e 5y ago0BSD has the slight advantage of Google placing it on their pre-approved licenses list, which means Google can use a 0BSD project but not an MIT-0 project: https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/thirdparty/licenses https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/thirdparty...
- Aeolun 5y agoMIT-0 (zero attribution) Works pretty well in my head. Don’t think it’s particularly confusing.
- orangepurple 5y agoMIT-ZA Rolls off the tongue better too.
- BiteCode_dev 5y agoAnd next time somebody asks what's the lowest bar to pass for the code to be shared as free software, you can say: It's the bar MIT-ZA.
- jedberg 5y agoDon't forget to tip your server.
- omoikane 5y agoI have similar concerns about the name being confusing, in the sense that the original MIT license originated from MIT, whereas this license was written by someone else. It might appear as if MIT is endorsing this license despite only serving as an inspiration, and we don't know if MIT actually wants to endorse it.
- hvdijk 5y ago> I don't think their intentions are entirely altruistic here. No part of what you wrote before this in any way suggests anything about the intentions.
- thaumasiotes 5y agoIt's the same 0 as in the CC0 license (which is called out in the description). Zero requirements.
- noizejoy 5y agoExactly, but I couldn’t figure of how it actually differs from CC0, despite apparent protestation to that effect: > The CC0 and various "do what you want" licenses and various public domain dedications may be less attractive to the initial developer for various reasons (i.e., a license is preferable to a public domain dedication). Maybe the difference is more a branding/tribal association than a legal one?
- kijin 5y agoCC0 is public domain. You waive all copyright (and even moral rights!) in a CC0-licensed work. MIT0 only waives the requirement to retain your copyright notice. It doesn't waive your copyright itself. CC0 contains language that is more suitable for works of art than computer programs, and is intentionally vague regarding which rights are being waived because the use cases are so diverse. (What does it mean to "perform" or "communicate" a program?) Developers might prefer something a bit more precise. CC0 is long and complicated [1]. You probably don't want to put that in the header of a gist. [1] https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
- thaumasiotes 5y ago> MIT0 only waives the requirement to retain your copyright notice. It doesn't waive your copyright itself. Except that it does. MIT-0 "only" waives the requirement to retain your copyright notice in that that is the change it makes compared to the MIT license. But the MIT license has already waived every other aspect of your copyright. You're not retaining any rights in an MIT-0 licensed work.
- kijin 5y ago
- lnxg33k1 5y ago--- 1. It has conflicting branding. How is a newbie gonna know the difference? How many will misclick it because it sorts first, or because they don't know it's different than true MIT? --- Not a lawyer either and I deeply hate MIT(s) but my favourite concept in law is that ignorance is never a justification and is never used so, if you are using a license, don't be ignorant on that license? Or should we avoid doing things because there is people who wouldn't bother getting documented that could get upset? :o
- tmp538394722 5y agoAll things being equal, people will use the license that is easiest for them to understand that it meets their needs. (One of their needs might be that other people also easily understand their license) Using familiar “branding” like MIT is arguably a way to communicate easily and efficiently. When people sell “gluten free pizza” they are banking on the fact that people know what a pizza is.
- BiteCode_dev 5y agoSince I'm one of the ignorant people, would you educate me and share the reasons for your MIT license distaste ?
- idealmedtech 5y agoIf you're a big enterprise with lots of open source dependencies, you have to audit your ENTIRE dependency chain to see which of them are MIT licensed, and include the license text for each one. It's a pain, so many big shops avoid MIT, and more restrictive licenses like GPL
- BiteCode_dev 5y agoI'd like the OP to answer, because this argument is pretty much usable for most FOSS licences, not specifically MIT. Besides, legally, you should know all the licences of all your dependancies, and pulling that out is usually scripted in big shops. So given the strong aversion demonstrating in the comment, I'm expecting something different.
- kevin_thibedeau 5y agoIt should be 2-clause MIT to follow the pattern of 2,3,4-clause BSD.
- slaymaker1907 5y agoIt's really not too bad with good tooling that can generate your notice documentation.
- ulrikrasmussen 5y agoLexicographically, MIT comes before MIT-0.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mpalmer 5y agoRight? MIT-NOATT would be much clearer. Make it obvious it's about a single difference. MIT-0 reads too cool/"clever".