4 ms·

Why do you prefer it over Apache 2.0? Apache discusses patents and contributors and can allow for more complex attribution requirements.

by logn 12y ago

Aldo_MX 12y ago
Usually my intention writing software is to build something useful for the people. I'm not interested in the legal mumbo-jumbo and MIT is a license which it's easier to understand for non-lawyers like me.
- tracker1 12y ago
  I like ISC for similar reasons... just a little bit shorter.
- technomancy 12y ago
  Code that doesn't have patent protection isn't very useful to people who live in countries with oppressive patent laws.
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    If I could make all my patent problems go away by sprinkling magic Apache License dust on my code, I'd consider it, but I don't think it works that way.
  - Aldo_MX 12y ago
    Code with encryption isn't very useful to people who live in countries where encryption is forbidden, does that mean I shouldn't write code with encryption?
sergiotapia 12y ago
Less legalese, I'm here to write code, not interpret law. That's why I prefer the MIT license.
- Alupis 12y ago
  > Less legalese, I'm here to write code, not interpret law. Is reading/understanding the License one time really that difficult? After your first read through, you basically just copy a text file into the root of your repo for each project and you're done... For me, the license could be 1 paragraph or 1,000 pages. I only have to understand it once then it just becomes a standard part of any new repo I create.
  - Aldo_MX 12y ago
    You must remember that: a) Many people don't speak English natively. b) Jurisdictions are different in every country, and sometimes in every state, the law of where you live takes precedence over what your LICENSE file says. Ex. jurisdictions where encryption is forbidden. c) Some people just make projects "for fun". Reading and understanding different licenses until you find the one you agree the most with is definitely "not fun". d) Nobody recommends a license without a disclaimer of "at your own risk" unless that person is a lawyer and it's getting paid to do that recommendation.
  - bronson 12y ago
    ...until you want to integrate some code that's under a different license. Wading through pages of potential incompatibilities is not the way I want to spend my time. Speaking from experience here.
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    >Is reading/understanding the License one time really that difficult? Yeah, actually, it is. Otherwise, litigation over these matters wouldn't take months and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. >I only have to understand it once Sorry, but just let some judge/jury make a decision that changes or restricts the meaning of a word like "distribute" and you've potentially got a big job ahead of you.
frik 12y ago
BSD* and MIT are easier to read than Apache license, and compatible with all GPL licenses. Apache 1.x license is incompatible with GPL. Apache 2.0 license is a free software license and is compatible with GPLv3+, but not with GPLv2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License#GPL_compatibility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License#GPL_compatibilit... GPLv2 incompatibility hurts many open source projects, also in the Linux area (Android code is Apache, Linux GPLv2). The Mozilla Public License and the related CDDL are problematic as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribu... (ZFS and DTrace cannot be included in Linux source)
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  While the FSF portrays them as GPLv2 and earlier compatible, BSD and MIT both require downstream notices and language not required by any version of the GPL, which makes them incompatible with any version before GPLv3, which allows additional terms of the type at issue.

Why do you prefer it over Apache 2.0? Apache discusses patents and contributors and can allow for more complex attribution requirements.

by logn 12y ago

Why do you prefer it over Apache 2.0? Apache discusses patents and contributors and can allow for more complex attribution requirements.

Aldo_MX 12y ago

Usually my intention writing software is to build something useful for the people. I'm not interested in the legal mumbo-jumbo and MIT is a license which it's easier to understand for non-lawyers like me.

tracker1 12y ago
I like ISC for similar reasons... just a little bit shorter.
technomancy 12y ago
Code that doesn't have patent protection isn't very useful to people who live in countries with oppressive patent laws.
- tedunangst 12y ago
  If I could make all my patent problems go away by sprinkling magic Apache License dust on my code, I'd consider it, but I don't think it works that way.
- Aldo_MX 12y ago
  Code with encryption isn't very useful to people who live in countries where encryption is forbidden, does that mean I shouldn't write code with encryption?

sergiotapia 12y ago

Less legalese, I'm here to write code, not interpret law. That's why I prefer the MIT license.

Alupis 12y ago
> Less legalese, I'm here to write code, not interpret law. Is reading/understanding the License one time really that difficult? After your first read through, you basically just copy a text file into the root of your repo for each project and you're done... For me, the license could be 1 paragraph or 1,000 pages. I only have to understand it once then it just becomes a standard part of any new repo I create.
- Aldo_MX 12y ago
  You must remember that: a) Many people don't speak English natively. b) Jurisdictions are different in every country, and sometimes in every state, the law of where you live takes precedence over what your LICENSE file says. Ex. jurisdictions where encryption is forbidden. c) Some people just make projects "for fun". Reading and understanding different licenses until you find the one you agree the most with is definitely "not fun". d) Nobody recommends a license without a disclaimer of "at your own risk" unless that person is a lawyer and it's getting paid to do that recommendation.
- bronson 12y ago
  ...until you want to integrate some code that's under a different license. Wading through pages of potential incompatibilities is not the way I want to spend my time. Speaking from experience here.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
  >Is reading/understanding the License one time really that difficult? Yeah, actually, it is. Otherwise, litigation over these matters wouldn't take months and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. >I only have to understand it once Sorry, but just let some judge/jury make a decision that changes or restricts the meaning of a word like "distribute" and you've potentially got a big job ahead of you.

frik 12y ago

BSD* and MIT are easier to read than Apache license, and compatible with all GPL licenses. Apache 1.x license is incompatible with GPL. Apache 2.0 license is a free software license and is compatible with GPLv3+, but not with GPLv2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License#GPL_compatibility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License#GPL_compatibilit... GPLv2 incompatibility hurts many open source projects, also in the Linux area (Android code is Apache, Linux GPLv2). The Mozilla Public License and the related CDDL are problematic as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribu... (ZFS and DTrace cannot be included in Linux source)

dragonwriter 12y ago
While the FSF portrays them as GPLv2 and earlier compatible, BSD and MIT both require downstream notices and language not required by any version of the GPL, which makes them incompatible with any version before GPLv3, which allows additional terms of the type at issue.