5 ms·

I wonder why they would do this. In fact, I don't see the benefit of MIT over Apache except for compatibility with GPLv2. But I'm definitely not an expert, if s

I wonder why they would do this. In fact, I don't see the benefit of MIT over Apache except for compatibility with GPLv2. But I'm definitely not an expert, if someone would want to explain.

cwyers 12y ago
Parts of Mono are GPLv2, maybe they want Mono (and thus Xamarin) to have the freedom to use as much of this as possible.
- laichzeit0 12y ago
  The irony that Microsoft would one day release code under the MIT license which would make it possible for Mono to benefit (but not the other way around because of GPL) is hilarious. How the wheel of freedom has turned. * disclaimer: yeah I know the Stallman crowd have their own particular definition of "freedom" that is vastly different and would disagree
tedunangst 12y ago
Less words.
- yellowapple 12y ago
  To be honest, that's actually one of the big motivators for me using MIT-style licenses (or BSD or ISC or somesuch) for a lot of my own code. I'm so accustomed to 525600-page EULAs that I cringe as soon as I see a license that exceeds one screenful, and I figure there are plenty of others who do the same. Plus there are the other benifits (especially when it comes to free software projects being able to reuse that code without worrying so much about license compatibility).
rikkus 12y ago
The Apache licence grants patent rights. Microsoft make patent promises elsewhere, so using Apache might confuse matters.
maxlybbert 12y ago
I have no idea what mattered to Microsoft, but my view is that MIT is just simpler. There really aren't too many disagreements on what the license requires. Additionally, if you don't truly plan on enforcing many requirements of the license (e.g., if a distributor fails to "cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files" (4.b.), will you send them a letter telling them to correct the problem?), then why bother using a license that includes those requirements?
moonchrome 12y ago
>except for compatibility with GPLv2 I suppose this is important to Mono guys as mono is GPL AFAIK.

I wonder why they would do this. In fact, I don't see the benefit of MIT over Apache except for compatibility with GPLv2. But I'm definitely not an expert, if someone would want to explain.

cwyers 12y ago

Parts of Mono are GPLv2, maybe they want Mono (and thus Xamarin) to have the freedom to use as much of this as possible.

laichzeit0 12y ago
The irony that Microsoft would one day release code under the MIT license which would make it possible for Mono to benefit (but not the other way around because of GPL) is hilarious. How the wheel of freedom has turned. * disclaimer: yeah I know the Stallman crowd have their own particular definition of "freedom" that is vastly different and would disagree

tedunangst 12y ago

Less words.

yellowapple 12y ago
To be honest, that's actually one of the big motivators for me using MIT-style licenses (or BSD or ISC or somesuch) for a lot of my own code. I'm so accustomed to 525600-page EULAs that I cringe as soon as I see a license that exceeds one screenful, and I figure there are plenty of others who do the same. Plus there are the other benifits (especially when it comes to free software projects being able to reuse that code without worrying so much about license compatibility).

rikkus 12y ago

The Apache licence grants patent rights. Microsoft make patent promises elsewhere, so using Apache might confuse matters.

maxlybbert 12y ago

I have no idea what mattered to Microsoft, but my view is that MIT is just simpler. There really aren't too many disagreements on what the license requires. Additionally, if you don't truly plan on enforcing many requirements of the license (e.g., if a distributor fails to "cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files" (4.b.), will you send them a letter telling them to correct the problem?), then why bother using a license that includes those requirements?

moonchrome 12y ago

>except for compatibility with GPLv2 I suppose this is important to Mono guys as mono is GPL AFAIK.