3 ms·
I believe Go is actually BSD-Licensed, not MIT. Though from what I understand these are very similar (permissive) licenses.
by PuerkitoBio 14y ago
I believe Go is actually BSD-Licensed, not MIT. Though from what I understand these are very similar (permissive) licenses.
- andrewflnr 14y agoThey're almost interchangeable. If I wasn't reading carefully I probably wouldn't notice the difference. http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause
- qznc 14y agoFrom http://producingoss.com/en/license-choosing.html http://producingoss.com/en/license-choosing.html : There is perhaps one reason to prefer the revised BSD license to the MIT/X license, which is that the BSD includes this clause: Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. It's not clear that without such a clause, a recipient of the software would have had the right to use the licensor's name anyway, but the clause removes any possible doubt. For organizations worried about trademark control, therefore, the revised BSD license may be slightly preferable to MIT/X. In general, however, a liberal copyright license does not imply that recipients have any right to use or dilute your trademarks — copyright law and trademark law are two different beasts.