Talk:MIT License

Untitled comments

Suggest that someone creates a section explaining the freedoms and restrictions of this license, rather than just the quoted licence. Perhaps a comparison to GPL/LGPL/BSD.

I created this page based on the Open Source Initiative's definition of the MIT License. However, I now notice that the Free Software Foundation considers the name "MIT License" ambiguous. So, I'll update the page (soon) with that dispute in mind. -- Mattworld 00:15, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Aside: I now recall that I didn't create the page, but greatly improved upon it from a piece of source text. -- Mattworld 00:17, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I added a very short, simple intro sentence so the casual reader will know if this is an article they want to read. It may need a little fleshing out from more knowledgable writers (a mention of open source, perhaps) - but please, keep it short and easy, aimed at the non-technical reader. Those who already know what the license is and seek more details can skip the intro, but those who are clueless need some context. DavidWBrooks 14:12, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Anyone fancy adding a comparison with the GPL? It seems an obvious and important point of comparison, unless I'm missing something... Oolong 16:18, 19 May 2005 (BST)

Question about the BSD-MIT-comparison: does this text have to appear in binary distributions of the software. I'm asking because the BSD-license makes an extra clause for this situation. - 84.179.201.32 19:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

x.org reorg

http://wiki.x.org/Downloads_terms.html ( old site of X license ) doesn't show up anymore, but archive.org archive of http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html still does, and is different than the text of this license.

Could someone try staring a "variations" section?

I know XFree86 use a modified version of the MIT license, and since there are so many names for this license, I guess that others will also have modified it. This seems to be worth starting a section about. Gronky 16:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Public Domain?

What's the difference between this license and public domain? --Zarel 15:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's an explicit copyright license (which removes any uncertainty about whether the work is in the public domain or not), it disclaims warranty (which you can't do with a public domain work -- although the case law that started the whole warranty disclaimer thing may not apply to public domain works), and it tells you that you can't claim that it's MIT's or BSD's work. RussNelson 15:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

GPL Compatible

"Specifically, it is a GPL-compatible permissive license, meaning that it permits reuse within proprietary software on the condition that the license is distributed with that software." - I'm pretty sure that's not what GPL compatible means. I will change this but someone please check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErikHaugen (talk • contribs) 22:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Read proprietary as restrictive to get a better understanding. For instance, GPL is restrictive (down near the bottom of the scale). MIT license permits reuse within GPL code - which is no different than within any other type of restrictive license Tedickey 23:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying "proprietary software" here has been coopted to mean something other than it's actual meaning in order to make a point? It would be nice to spell that out in a "controversy" section or something rather than using confusing word choices, if I understand you correctly. "proprietary software" in that sentence is wikilinked to a page that doesn't really jive with calling GPL "proprietary." ErikHaugen 23:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

yes - rather than using a neutral presentation which would have used a comparison between permissive licenses (already linked) to restrictive licenses, it was phrased to offer the reader only the choice between "proprietary" and "GPL". The permissive license topic also lacks a neutral point of view, since it leads back in a circle... Tedickey 23:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

does this "infect" other proprietary licenses?

If i use a piece of MIT licensed code together with other code, does that code also has to become MIT licensed code? or it can stay closed-sourced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.229.215 (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No - it doesn't affect the other licenses. Tedickey (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I find this confusing because of the requirement to include the Copyright and the Permission notices "in all copies or substantial portions of the Software". It reads plainly on "this software and associated documentation files". It seems to me that if the MIT License is included within a collection that contains both some MIT Licensed code and some other code, then the License would read on the collection as a whole. I.e. "this software" without the caps, having its plain language meaning, would be taken to me "the software with which this license is included", wouldn't it? How does it not affect the other licenses? --Fbg00 (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't say that you have to include the notice in other files that happen to be collected together with it, nor does it restrict the collection of files that are used to compile and run a program. Tedickey (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Date of MIT license

The current wording dates from 1988 (unspecified day/month) and often is found in conjunction with a copyright notice for Digital Equipment Corporation. At the moment, the oldest sources for X online appear in ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/X10R3/X.V10R3.tar.gz for Febrary 2, 1986, worded as follows (same idea, different expression):

X.V10R3/X/mit-copyright.h

/*

Copyright 1985 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this
software and its documentation for any purpose and without
fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright
notice appear in all copies and that both that copyright
notice and this permission notice appear in supporting
documentation, and that the name of M.I.T. not be used in
advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the
software without specific, written prior permission.
M.I.T. makes no representations about the suitability of
this software for any purpose.  It is provided "as is"
without express or implied warranty.

This software is not subject to any license of the American
Telephone and Telegraph Company or of the Regents of the
University of California.

*/

Tedickey (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit to Scintilla (editing component) asserts that it does not use the MIT license. However, I noticed that this topic doesn't give a reliable source for the text. The text as in the X headers doesn't agree with the text shown on this topic. TEDickey (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A current example is found in X.h:

Copyright 1987, 1998  The Open Group 
 
Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and its 
documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that 
the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that 
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting  
documentation. 
 
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in 
all copies or substantial portions of the Software. 
 
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR 
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, 
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE 
OPEN GROUP BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN 
AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN 
CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. 
 
Except as contained in this notice, the name of The Open Group shall not be 
used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings 
in this Software without prior written authorization from The Open Group.

Copyright 1987 by Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard, Massachusetts. 
 
                        All Rights Reserved 
 
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its  
documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted,  
provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that 
both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in  
supporting documentation, and that the name of Digital not be 
used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the 
software without specific, written prior permission.   
 
DIGITAL DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE, INCLUDING 
ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS, IN NO EVENT SHALL 
DIGITAL BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR 
ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, 
WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, 
ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS 
SOFTWARE. 

..noting that mention of "The Open Group" was the rewording from 1999, which replaced various attributions (mostly for X Consortium) TEDickey (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

History of the MIT license

Here's some first hand history, from my memory...

X was developed jointly between MIT Project Athena and MIT Laboratory for Computer Science. I was working on Project Athena (I was a Digital Equipment Corporation engineer at the time): and Bob Scheifler was at LCS. There was much interest in X, which was one of the first window systems (particularly portable window systems), and MIT had to decide what to do about it. Some of us (myself included) argued that by licensing X liberally, MIT would benefit more from applications than anything it could get in revenue from trying to license it, particularly since the terms of Project Athena was that Digital and IBM would have license to results of Athena.

Jerry Saltzer, then technical director of Project Athena, worked with the MIT lawyers to draft the license language, IIRC; I remember seeing a draft, reading it, and saying that this seemed to fit the bill to achieve everyone's ends. So MIT blessed it, and I remember a massive editing session to update the copyrights on the source code, which then went out in the X10R3, which I shepherded (along with all the releases through X11R1, roughly, though others helped loads...).

You can figure out when X11R3 shipped from modification dates in that original tarball, though it may have been updated slightly after its initial release for a security bug, if vague memory and some investigation serves me correctly.

I've got mail buried somewhere likely of much of this.

--JimGettys (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyleft: No

How is it No if redisributed copies must keep the license? -79.176.200.211 (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If it could be construed as copyleft in any way whatsoever, RMS would be sure to have an essay on his website amplifying that aspect Tedickey (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It is Copyleft, Its not Strong Copyleft(as the FSF likes to call it) but you are free to do anything with the code, even when compared to GPL. 85.139.189.95 (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Do read the topic Copyleft. The first sentence makes a point that distinguishes it from MIT, i.e., there's no requirement that redistributed/modified copies require that the rights are preserved Tedickey (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This clause seems to imply that the MIT license must accompany other software of which it is a part, unless only pieces of the software are taken which are not substantial portions. "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.112.144.129 (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Most copyright notices require that the copyright be kept with copies. That says nothing about rights to modifications. TEDickey (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The MIT copyright notice must always be included be it in the original work or when it is included as a part of a modified work. This is not some kind of right that the receiver of an copy gets, but a requirement that the distributor must follow. The MIT license will also only cover the parts that is copied from the original work when used in a modified work. Copyleft on other hand deals with rights the recipients of the work gets, by adding requirements to the distributor which enforces that those rights are preserved. Those rights cover the hole work, and any modified version of that work.--Belorn (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is some of the license text in UPPERCASE?

Curious as to why the lower part of the license is in uppercase -- is this just an affectation or historical artifact, or does it have some legal significance?

Either way .. the reason should surely be part of the content of the Article?

quota (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That's because the original notices used that style (since boldface, etc., aren't part of US-ASCII). I recall an additional explanation to the effect that legal warnings have to be emphasized in text TEDickey (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, for details look at Implied warranty#Disclaimer of an implied warranty. Basically the US forbids hiding various disclaimers. Also source code, a common place to find the license, being universally unformatted text leaves capitalization is the only way to make a passage stand out. Awg1010 (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguity (sic)

Stallman's been commenting that "MIT License" is ambiguous longer than Expat has been around (linked topic says it's from 1998). Perhaps someone can find a reliable source to the origin of his comment, rather than periodic rephrasing TEDickey (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

For instance, the comment about Expat is missing from the oldest version for http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html on the wayback machine (2001). That leaves out 13 years or so of "ambiguity" TEDickey (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Software under dual licenses of GPL and MIT Licese?

I am quite confused that why software can be under dual licenses of GPL and MIT License. The point is, GPL demands a software, which contain GPL'd software parts, to be GPL'd where source code have to be open, while MIT License does not. Well, it seems okay for MIT License but it does not for GPL. Maybe my understanding is not right but is it really possible for them to be logically compatible?--133.87.181.33 (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I could make an atempet to explain the different concepts, but please be aware that talk pages should be used only for discussing on how to improve the article. When people talk about license compatibillity, they normally talk about combining code which is under different licenses. When distrubuting the combined work under one software, you need to follow both licenses and they need to be compatible. In practise this mean when distrubuting software with both GPL and MIT parts, you need to keep the copyright notice on the code with MIT license (the requirement from MIT), and also follow all requirements under GPL for the work as a whole. Now, this is not the same thing as dual license, as in that case all the code must be lincensed under both MIT and GPL. With dual licensing you can choose duing distrubution which license you want to use. This type of licensing is rare, but do happen when there is a strong disagreement between coders on what license the work should be under. Belorn (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"the MIT" (sic)

As an abbreviation, the reader is not expecting "the MIT" because that is rarely used. Some editor may assume that the abbreviation is transformed in speech to "the Massachusetts Institute of Technology", but lacking a WP:RS, it is jarring. To note that MIT itself uses simply "MIT" and not "the MIT", one might view their website TEDickey (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)