Talk:MIT License

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Free Software / Software / Computing  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Free Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of free software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. reorg[edit] ( old site of X license ) doesn't show up anymore, but archive of still does, and is different than the text of this license.

vague reference to "entire code base"[edit]

recent edits introduce an extract from a few technical-sources without defining any terms. Overall, the newly added content is vague, easily interpreted in ways that the cited authors likely did not intend, not encyclopedic. TEDickey (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

patent discussion[edit]

The paragraph contains at least one sentence fragment, and is more than half editorializing. If fixed (rather than simply removed), the topic would be improved by making a new section with this content. As is, it is unrelated to comparison between licenses. TEDickey (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

promotion to lede of dubious content[edit]

As noted here, equating MIT (or X11) license with Expat is dubious at best. The existing topic was a compromise between the competing edits TEDickey (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I was going off the FSF's page about licenses and the fact that the FSF refers to what the OSI calls the MIT license as the Expat license. Given the FSF's influence, I think it's a plausible alternative name. I don't feel particularly strongly about it though; feel free to remove it from the lede if you want. wctaiwan (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The source says "It is sometimes ambiguously referred to", which seems weak. The lede (to avoid clutter) should limit itself to the most common names. As Stallman said in another context, there are many MIT licenses, while this topic is limited to discussing just a few. TEDickey (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd argue that the MIT license, the Expat license and the X11 license are all common names, but as I don't feel strongly about this, I've gone and taken it back out. That said, I think it might be a good idea to summarize the first section in the lede, i.e. there isn't really a single, canonical MIT license, but rather several variations which may all be referred to by that name. wctaiwan (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
yes, that would work TEDickey (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Split to reduce ambiguity[edit]

It seems that having such an ambiguous article name has lead to a lot of confusion about what, exactly, is the topic of the article. Therefore, I am proposing that the article be split into MIT/X11 license for the license used on X11 and ncurses, and MIT/Expat license for the more liberal form used for Expat.

Alternatively, each could have a top-level (h2) section (including the full text somewhere), perhaps followed by another with the explicit purpose of comparing and contrasting the two. But either way, we should still create MIT/X11 license and MIT/Expat license, and associate them with Wikidata items X11 license (Q18526202) and Expat license (Q18526198), respectively. —SamB (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If anybody's confused, then it's you. Visit and then scroll down to the bottom. There is a license text linked. Now look for differences to
I see none except different line breaks.
If you were referring to Wayland's license, it's old license text was Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer, not some imaginary different X11 license text. Yes, there is some HPND source code in X11 but that does not change the name of this license. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I think he's referring to this passage in the article, which reflects a subtle difference that indeed seems to make a lot of people mix up the two:
Differing from the Expat License,[3] the X11 License[4] (...) [includes] the clause: "Except as contained in this notice, the name(s) of the above copyright holders shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization."
The fact that now links to the MIT license page (which, by the way, contributes to this confusion by using plain "MIT" as the license name) doesn't mean that the definition of "MIT/X11" has changed. In other words, has clearly adopted the more common and more liberal Expat version, but this doesn't nullify the "MIT/X11" license's name (although it certainly confuses the situation).
At the very least, the passage from the article I quote above needs to be clarified. --Waldir talk 13:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
It's not actually clear if has "adopted" the Expat license, rather it is only apparent that someone found (as done pervasively in Wikipedia) that a web link was simpler than providing their own content. Most of the discussion of licenses in has been along the lines of eliminating duplication and combining copyright owners on a single copy of the license. But little progress has been made (see example) TEDickey (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, just to note where I was coming from when I proposed this: it'd be really nice to have a way to unambiguously wikilink to some text that unambiguously describes either of these two variants. —SamB (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There is not one "MIT licence", same as there is not one "BSD licence". The MIT/X licence is very roughly equivalent to the BSD/3c licence, the MIT/Expat licence is roughly equivalent to the BSD/2c licence. The BSD/Sleepycat licence is an example of a nonstandard BSD licence, the infamous MIT/JSON licence is an example of a nonstandard MIT licence.

The BSD license page exhibits multiple BSD licences and admits that they are a "family" of licences. Such a structure may be suitable here. -- thomas.hori (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

As usual, the way to go is to rely upon reliable sources for the opinions which are reflected in the "family" designation. Perhaps someone has suitable sources in mind. TEDickey (talk) 10:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)