5 ms·

I'm no license expert but isn't MIT the least restrictive license?

by MatthewPhillips 14y ago

antirez 14y ago
BSD two-clause and MIT should be substantially equivalent AFAIK.
- reidrac 14y ago
  The BSD has a "non-endorsement clause" prohibiting the use of the name of the copyright holders in promotion. The OSI approved version of the MIT license doesn't include an equivalent clause (that's the one I usually use in my projects), but some variations of the MIT license do (ie. the X11 license). EDIT: OK, I misread your comment when you said "BSD two-clause". I think you're right, as it removed the "non-endorsement" clause.
- ksec 14y ago
  Yes. I have always wanted to ask. So what is the difference between BSD and MIT?
  - rat87 14y ago
    Originated at Berkeley vs MIT I guess
  - qznc 14y ago
    BSD 2-clause = MIT (aka X11) The BSD 3-clause and 4-clause variants are a little bit more restrictive, though none of them have this "viral" character of copyleft licences like the GPL. I would advise MIT, because it does not have this "how many clause" confusions.
ksec 14y ago
I think there is also Public Domain. Which has Zero Clauses. But I also think there were issues with Public Domain isn't exactly a licenses and acceptable in every country.
- justincormack 14y ago
  Indeed it is not valid in most places, as things become public domain when copyright expires but you cannot give up your copyright. Carrying round eg a BSD license declaration is more useful for this reason.
  - erichocean 14y ago
    I like how the SQLite devs handled this (SQLite is public domain, and, if I'm not mistaken, widely used outside the US): They sell a license for $1000. http://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/license-step1 http://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/license-step1 I'm curious if there is anyone in a place that doesn't "recognize" an author's right to give their work to the public that's actually bought a license?
qznc 14y ago
Right. If you want "least restrictive", then use MIT. Apache Licence (version 2.0) is also interesting. It is just as "least restrictive", but additionally includes a "patents grant". Unfortunately, it is not as short and simple as MIT.
damian2000 14y ago
FYI, I find this site useful for this ... http://www.tldrlegal.com/browse http://www.tldrlegal.com/browse It shows all of the licenses on one page, where: Red = cannot Green = can Blue = must

I'm no license expert but isn't MIT the least restrictive license?

antirez 14y ago

BSD two-clause and MIT should be substantially equivalent AFAIK.

reidrac 14y ago
The BSD has a "non-endorsement clause" prohibiting the use of the name of the copyright holders in promotion. The OSI approved version of the MIT license doesn't include an equivalent clause (that's the one I usually use in my projects), but some variations of the MIT license do (ie. the X11 license). EDIT: OK, I misread your comment when you said "BSD two-clause". I think you're right, as it removed the "non-endorsement" clause.
ksec 14y ago
Yes. I have always wanted to ask. So what is the difference between BSD and MIT?
- rat87 14y ago
  Originated at Berkeley vs MIT I guess
- qznc 14y ago
  BSD 2-clause = MIT (aka X11) The BSD 3-clause and 4-clause variants are a little bit more restrictive, though none of them have this "viral" character of copyleft licences like the GPL. I would advise MIT, because it does not have this "how many clause" confusions.

ksec 14y ago

I think there is also Public Domain. Which has Zero Clauses. But I also think there were issues with Public Domain isn't exactly a licenses and acceptable in every country.

justincormack 14y ago
Indeed it is not valid in most places, as things become public domain when copyright expires but you cannot give up your copyright. Carrying round eg a BSD license declaration is more useful for this reason.
- erichocean 14y ago
  I like how the SQLite devs handled this (SQLite is public domain, and, if I'm not mistaken, widely used outside the US): They sell a license for $1000. http://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/license-step1 http://www.hwaci.com/cgi-bin/license-step1 I'm curious if there is anyone in a place that doesn't "recognize" an author's right to give their work to the public that's actually bought a license?

qznc 14y ago

Right. If you want "least restrictive", then use MIT. Apache Licence (version 2.0) is also interesting. It is just as "least restrictive", but additionally includes a "patents grant". Unfortunately, it is not as short and simple as MIT.

damian2000 14y ago

FYI, I find this site useful for this ... http://www.tldrlegal.com/browse http://www.tldrlegal.com/browse It shows all of the licenses on one page, where: Red = cannot Green = can Blue = must