6 ms·

Why I use the MIT licence (by author of Rack)

39 points by Pistos2 17y ago

elbenshira 17y ago
I use the MIT license for all my projects because it's simple and sensible. I want to code and not worry about the politics. The MIT license gives me that.
- lamby 17y ago
  It might be simple, but I don't agree that using a permissive license is apolitical. Understanding this, passing your views off as "pragmatic" seems dishonest. The OP links to djb's site - he seems to conflate rejecting EULAs (which I agree with) and rejecting copyright on software; am I reading him correctly? (I mention him here because nobody can claim his stance is pragmatic at all.)
  - elbenshira 17y ago
    I mean "politics" in the sense that the MIT license is concise, unlike the GPL.
    - rw 17y ago
      The phrase "public domain" is even more concise.
      - antonovka 17y ago
        Unfortunately, it's also legally questionable in a great number of jurisdictions, so you have to use the MIT license instead.
        derefr 17y ago
        Perhaps we can have a "public domain license," then. Attaching it to a project would go something like: "This software is in the public domain, as that term is defined under USC yadda-yadda. If your local law does not define the term similarly, then consider the conditions of USC yadda-yadda to be the terms of the license of this software to you."
        neilc 17y ago
        That would actually pretty close to the MIT license, in practice. There are major benefits to not inventing yet-another-license, and using something that everyone is already familiar with.
        rntz 17y ago
        There are several licenses which attempt to imitate or facilitate public domain status already, most notably Creative Common's CC0 (http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0) and the WTFPL (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/).
        pyre 17y ago
        Check out SQLite's license. IIRC, that is in the public domain.
        silentbicycle 17y ago
        Yes, but on its license page (http://sqlite.org/copyright.html http://sqlite.org/copyright.html), it has a section for how to obtain a different license for people "are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the right of an author to dedicate their work to the public domain" (among other things). Also, I've commented elsewhere in thread (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=783320 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=783320) about problems releasing it into the public domain has caused him.
        pyre 17y ago
        I didn't know that, but that's exactly the reason that I pointed in the direction of SQLite. I knew it was 'in the public domain', and that their 'full license' would probably have some sort of solution to issues like this. Obviously this issue is complex enough that they have a page devoted to it.
        silentbicycle 17y ago
        Right. Specifically, it's the intersection of a public domain license and a program that gets a lot of commercial use (esp. embedded in devices). I know of some other public domain programs (off the top of my head: several of lhf's libraries for Lua), but nothing else that has had the license carefully scrutinized for commercial use.
        trinket 17y ago
        I'm quite sure I read an interview or maybe just a mailing list posting where the author of sqlite (D. Richard Hipp) said that he in someway regretted releasing sqlite in the public domain, or at least if he knew what he knows now about the legal issues surrounding public domain he might reconsider. I can't find it. Does anybody else remember reading something similar or did I just imagine it?
  - mjgoins 17y ago
    I think you are correct in identifying a conflation of eula with copyright. In fact I don't understand why the link to djb is there at all, even given that conflation.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
jmillikin 17y ago
I realize “bad guys” don’t cease to exist—whether they “steal”, don’t share, lock up code, or have business models in mind you don’t like. But it’s not my fault they are that way, and neither it is my job to “teach them lessons”. I don't think any significant body of code is written or licensed for punitive reasons. The difference between the MIT and copyleft licenses such as CC-BY-SA or the GPL is that the MIT license does not protect your users from hostile middlemen.
- Tichy 17y ago
  Please elaborate? Middlemen as in people making my code malicious and pass it off as my code? How would that work?
  - jmillikin 17y ago
    If a middleman takes your code, compiles it, and then distributes it to the user, then that user has no access to the source code to the version installed on their system. This is one of the events the GPL is designed to guard against. In an ideal world, everybody would provide their users the same rights they received from the copyright holder. The only licenses required would be MIT/BSD style. I would love this; a simple license, in my opinion, is better than the enormous complexity of the GPL. However, since in the real world people can and do restrict user's rights to source code, the GPL is still needed.
    - Tichy 17y ago
      But wouldn't it kind of be the user's own fault if he installs software he doesn't see the source for? Also, how would the GPL protect the user, if the criminal does not mind doing illegal things anyway (like distributing malicious software)?
      - jmillikin 17y ago
        But wouldn't it kind of be the user's own fault if he installs software he doesn't see the source for? I don't believe that blaming the victim is a healthy attitude to life. "The rape was her fault for wearing those clothes" is for banana republics and history books, not modern times. Also, how would the GPL protect the user, if the criminal does not mind doing illegal things anyway (like distributing malicious software)? I didn't say it was a criminal act, and the software does not have to be malicious. Assuming the middleman makes any change at all, no matter to what purpose, then the user no longer has access to the source code for the application they're running. In my opinion, this is unacceptable, and I try to avoid contributing to software under a license which allows proprietary distribution.
railsjedi 17y ago
I totally agree. When you put something open source, generally the more people use it the better. GPL often just causes problems. MIT is simple, and lets anyone do anything. If I open source something, that's what I use. Otherwise I keep it closed.
Pistos2 17y ago
The main reason I use MIT is so that I can use my open source code in my own commercial endeavours without "infecting" that commercial codebase, which needs to remain closed source.
- jsonscripter 17y ago
  And you have every right to do that with the GNU Public License too, by the way.
  - gthank 17y ago
    Just to be clear, the reason that is the case is because the GP owns the copyright in the described scenario.
  - Pistos2 17y ago
    Please clarify. (IANAL, and so) this isn't entirely clear. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GP... http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GPLCommercially http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GP...
    - jmillikin 17y ago
      Copyright licenses grant rights to other people. They don't restrict the owner's rights. As the owner of copyrights on your code, you are allowed to distribute it in any way you want. This is part of copyright law. The GPL has nothing to do with it.
  - antonovka 17y ago
    Only if you own the copyright for the entire body of work. If you receive external contributions, you must request copyright assignment from contributors to allow you (and only you) to use the work for any purpose under any license. Pro-GPL arguments are full of these silly caveats. "You can still sell the software" -- so can anyone else, or they can just give it away for free. Now what? "You can use it under any license you want" -- only if you acquire full copyright for every single contribution. "You can sell services!" -- end users don't buy "services" for consumer software. "Non-GPL software is immoral" -- guess who buys the "services" that cover your development costs? Companies that ... sell proprietary software. .. and just to demonstrate the total rational disconnect of the primary GPL advocate, Mr. Stallman: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.devel/2963 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.devel/2963 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.devel/2970 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.devel/2970
mattculbreth 17y ago
What Zed Shaw said
cousin_it 17y ago
First, I live and code in Germany, where you can’t place things into the public domain without already being dead for a long time. Is that true? In Germany you're forbidden to make stuff and give it away?
- Tichy 17y ago
  I think you can not give away the Copyright to things, but I am not sure if that has any practical implications, as Copyright is just one of many rights. Most contracts by publishers manage to get the rights to do with your stuff whatever they want anyway.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  In Germany (and some other jurisdictions), you're forbidden to unilaterally disclaim responsibility for something you've written, which the public domain implies. Instead, you can only assert that there's no warranty (for example) via license (and/or contract, I guess?). Explicitly placing things in the public domain has a history in the US, but actually is not directly supported by law even there, only precedent.
- silentbicycle 17y ago
  There's a Google tech talk with Dr. D. Richard Hipp* (the primary author of SQLite), and he mentions that his decision to release SQLite under the public domain (for simplicity's sake) had surprising consequences -- in his words, the public domain doesn't exist for software in Europe, and several EU companies decided it would be prudent to pay a nominal fee in exchange for a custom, perpetual license from him. IANAL, etc., but that's a lead if you want to investigate further. (He didn't specify what countries in Europe, but strongly implied it was the case throughout.) * http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5160435487953918649 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5160435487953918649
billswift 17y ago
It's possible that putting things in the public domain is no longer allowed even in the US. Peter Saint-Andre puts all of his work in the public domain, but he wrote an essay with links almost three years ago discussing among other things that it may not be legal https://stpeter.im/index.php/2006/12/30/pd-howto/ https://stpeter.im/index.php/2006/12/30/pd-howto/ . He has a lot of other writings about PD and copyright issues here : https://stpeter.im/index.php/category/publicdomain/ https://stpeter.im/index.php/category/publicdomain/ . Note for those using IE; IE does not recognize his CA, you need to either click through or change the https to http.

39 points by Pistos2 17y ago

I use the MIT license for all my projects because it's simple and sensible. I want to code and not worry about the politics. The MIT license gives me that.

lamby 17y ago
It might be simple, but I don't agree that using a permissive license is apolitical. Understanding this, passing your views off as "pragmatic" seems dishonest. The OP links to djb's site - he seems to conflate rejecting EULAs (which I agree with) and rejecting copyright on software; am I reading him correctly? (I mention him here because nobody can claim his stance is pragmatic at all.)
- elbenshira 17y ago
  I mean "politics" in the sense that the MIT license is concise, unlike the GPL.
  - rw 17y ago
    The phrase "public domain" is even more concise.
    - antonovka 17y ago
      Unfortunately, it's also legally questionable in a great number of jurisdictions, so you have to use the MIT license instead.
      - derefr 17y ago
        Perhaps we can have a "public domain license," then. Attaching it to a project would go something like: "This software is in the public domain, as that term is defined under USC yadda-yadda. If your local law does not define the term similarly, then consider the conditions of USC yadda-yadda to be the terms of the license of this software to you."
        neilc 17y ago
        That would actually pretty close to the MIT license, in practice. There are major benefits to not inventing yet-another-license, and using something that everyone is already familiar with.
        rntz 17y ago
        There are several licenses which attempt to imitate or facilitate public domain status already, most notably Creative Common's CC0 (http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0) and the WTFPL (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/ http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/).
      - pyre 17y ago
        Check out SQLite's license. IIRC, that is in the public domain.
        silentbicycle 17y ago
        Yes, but on its license page (http://sqlite.org/copyright.html http://sqlite.org/copyright.html), it has a section for how to obtain a different license for people "are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the right of an author to dedicate their work to the public domain" (among other things). Also, I've commented elsewhere in thread (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=783320 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=783320) about problems releasing it into the public domain has caused him.
        pyre 17y ago
        I didn't know that, but that's exactly the reason that I pointed in the direction of SQLite. I knew it was 'in the public domain', and that their 'full license' would probably have some sort of solution to issues like this. Obviously this issue is complex enough that they have a page devoted to it.
        silentbicycle 17y ago
        Right. Specifically, it's the intersection of a public domain license and a program that gets a lot of commercial use (esp. embedded in devices). I know of some other public domain programs (off the top of my head: several of lhf's libraries for Lua), but nothing else that has had the license carefully scrutinized for commercial use.
        trinket 17y ago
        I'm quite sure I read an interview or maybe just a mailing list posting where the author of sqlite (D. Richard Hipp) said that he in someway regretted releasing sqlite in the public domain, or at least if he knew what he knows now about the legal issues surrounding public domain he might reconsider. I can't find it. Does anybody else remember reading something similar or did I just imagine it?
- mjgoins 17y ago
  I think you are correct in identifying a conflation of eula with copyright. In fact I don't understand why the link to djb is there at all, even given that conflation.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

jmillikin 17y ago

I realize “bad guys” don’t cease to exist—whether they “steal”, don’t share, lock up code, or have business models in mind you don’t like. But it’s not my fault they are that way, and neither it is my job to “teach them lessons”. I don't think any significant body of code is written or licensed for punitive reasons. The difference between the MIT and copyleft licenses such as CC-BY-SA or the GPL is that the MIT license does not protect your users from hostile middlemen.

Tichy 17y ago
Please elaborate? Middlemen as in people making my code malicious and pass it off as my code? How would that work?
- jmillikin 17y ago
  If a middleman takes your code, compiles it, and then distributes it to the user, then that user has no access to the source code to the version installed on their system. This is one of the events the GPL is designed to guard against. In an ideal world, everybody would provide their users the same rights they received from the copyright holder. The only licenses required would be MIT/BSD style. I would love this; a simple license, in my opinion, is better than the enormous complexity of the GPL. However, since in the real world people can and do restrict user's rights to source code, the GPL is still needed.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    But wouldn't it kind of be the user's own fault if he installs software he doesn't see the source for? Also, how would the GPL protect the user, if the criminal does not mind doing illegal things anyway (like distributing malicious software)?
    - jmillikin 17y ago
      But wouldn't it kind of be the user's own fault if he installs software he doesn't see the source for? I don't believe that blaming the victim is a healthy attitude to life. "The rape was her fault for wearing those clothes" is for banana republics and history books, not modern times. Also, how would the GPL protect the user, if the criminal does not mind doing illegal things anyway (like distributing malicious software)? I didn't say it was a criminal act, and the software does not have to be malicious. Assuming the middleman makes any change at all, no matter to what purpose, then the user no longer has access to the source code for the application they're running. In my opinion, this is unacceptable, and I try to avoid contributing to software under a license which allows proprietary distribution.

railsjedi 17y ago

I totally agree. When you put something open source, generally the more people use it the better. GPL often just causes problems. MIT is simple, and lets anyone do anything. If I open source something, that's what I use. Otherwise I keep it closed.

Pistos2 17y ago

The main reason I use MIT is so that I can use my open source code in my own commercial endeavours without "infecting" that commercial codebase, which needs to remain closed source.

jsonscripter 17y ago
And you have every right to do that with the GNU Public License too, by the way.
- gthank 17y ago
  Just to be clear, the reason that is the case is because the GP owns the copyright in the described scenario.
- Pistos2 17y ago
  Please clarify. (IANAL, and so) this isn't entirely clear. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GP... http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GPLCommercially http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#GP...
  - jmillikin 17y ago
    Copyright licenses grant rights to other people. They don't restrict the owner's rights. As the owner of copyrights on your code, you are allowed to distribute it in any way you want. This is part of copyright law. The GPL has nothing to do with it.
- antonovka 17y ago
  Only if you own the copyright for the entire body of work. If you receive external contributions, you must request copyright assignment from contributors to allow you (and only you) to use the work for any purpose under any license. Pro-GPL arguments are full of these silly caveats. "You can still sell the software" -- so can anyone else, or they can just give it away for free. Now what? "You can use it under any license you want" -- only if you acquire full copyright for every single contribution. "You can sell services!" -- end users don't buy "services" for consumer software. "Non-GPL software is immoral" -- guess who buys the "services" that cover your development costs? Companies that ... sell proprietary software. .. and just to demonstrate the total rational disconnect of the primary GPL advocate, Mr. Stallman: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.devel/2963 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.devel/2963 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.devel/2970 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.mingw.devel/2970

mattculbreth 17y ago

What Zed Shaw said

cousin_it 17y ago

First, I live and code in Germany, where you can’t place things into the public domain without already being dead for a long time. Is that true? In Germany you're forbidden to make stuff and give it away?

Tichy 17y ago
I think you can not give away the Copyright to things, but I am not sure if that has any practical implications, as Copyright is just one of many rights. Most contracts by publishers manage to get the rights to do with your stuff whatever they want anyway.
randallsquared 17y ago
In Germany (and some other jurisdictions), you're forbidden to unilaterally disclaim responsibility for something you've written, which the public domain implies. Instead, you can only assert that there's no warranty (for example) via license (and/or contract, I guess?). Explicitly placing things in the public domain has a history in the US, but actually is not directly supported by law even there, only precedent.
silentbicycle 17y ago
There's a Google tech talk with Dr. D. Richard Hipp* (the primary author of SQLite), and he mentions that his decision to release SQLite under the public domain (for simplicity's sake) had surprising consequences -- in his words, the public domain doesn't exist for software in Europe, and several EU companies decided it would be prudent to pay a nominal fee in exchange for a custom, perpetual license from him. IANAL, etc., but that's a lead if you want to investigate further. (He didn't specify what countries in Europe, but strongly implied it was the case throughout.) * http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5160435487953918649 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5160435487953918649

billswift 17y ago

It's possible that putting things in the public domain is no longer allowed even in the US. Peter Saint-Andre puts all of his work in the public domain, but he wrote an essay with links almost three years ago discussing among other things that it may not be legal https://stpeter.im/index.php/2006/12/30/pd-howto/ https://stpeter.im/index.php/2006/12/30/pd-howto/ . He has a lot of other writings about PD and copyright issues here : https://stpeter.im/index.php/category/publicdomain/ https://stpeter.im/index.php/category/publicdomain/ . Note for those using IE; IE does not recognize his CA, you need to either click through or change the https to http.