4 ms·
How is this different from an impolite MIT license? Edit: also, for the interested, there is a free e-book from O'Reilly explaining the major free software lic
by tunnuz 13y ago
How is this different from an impolite MIT license?
Edit: also, for the interested, there is a free e-book from O'Reilly explaining the major free software licenses http://oreilly.com/openbook/osfreesoft/book/index.html http://oreilly.com/openbook/osfreesoft/book/index.html
- dkuntz2 13y agothe main difference is that this essentially places the work in the public domain, where the MIT license means it's freely available, but the copyright is still the creator's. Also, thou have to retain the MIT license and distribute it with all subsequent works.
- aprescott 13y agoI don't think this is true. MIT explicitly allows sublicensing, meaning you can essentially just change the license on any derivative. The copyright notice needs to remain, though.
- k-mcgrady 13y agoThanks for the link. I remember how much trouble I had trying to pick a license when I first released code (even though it wasn't a big project or likely to be used by many people). I think I finally made my decision through research on StackOverflow and Wikipedia. This book would have been very useful.