3 ms·
If you consider having to propagate the same rights you were given as a limitation, you cannot also claim that MIT/BSD licenses allow users to do whatever they
by pritambaral 3y ago
If you consider having to propagate the same rights you were given as a limitation, you cannot also claim that MIT/BSD licenses allow users to do whatever they want.
MIT and BSD have requirements you must fulfil too. You can't just "do whatever you want" with them.
----
I don't normally reach for this level of pedantry, but some takes in this thread just boggle my mind.
- kube-system 3y agoThat's fair. I was thinking more in terms of applicable use cases, rather than limitations on liablity/warranty/sublicensing. Although on that note, I find it somewhat funny to speak about something like the MIT license as conveying "rights", when half of the license's purpose is to take away the licensee's legal rights.
- pritambaral 3y ago> ... take away the licensee's legal rights. MIT/BSD licences do not take away any rights from the licensee. They merely avoid giving licensees certain rights that would otherwise be understood to be automatic or implicitly granted alongwith the copyright licence. Like when Anakin was reminded by Mace Windu that his seat on the Jedi Council does not grant him the rank of Master.
- kube-system 3y agoGlass-half-full or glass-half-empty, the fact of the matter is that they intentionally disclaim legal rights which would otherwise have automatically been available to the user in many jurisdictions. It's crazy to me how it is completely normal for engineers in other fields to be held liable for shoddy work, but many software engineers think they're upholding users' rights by giving them software that prohibits users from holding them responsible for their work. These limitations exist solely out of convenience for the author.