Talk:MIT License

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing / Software / FOSS (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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 This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-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 Free and open-source software (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
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 This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptInWikiProject Computing 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.

Some info[edit]

Which year that MIT license published? It is this license made by MIT? 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:34DA:CBE0:8C13:F170 (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It depends (not all files had identical text), and there were changes over time. TEDickey (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Who made MIT license? The first ever MIT license came out in 1985/1988? and it reads:
  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.  No representations are made about the suitability of this
  software for any purpose.  It is provided "as is" without express or
  implied warranty.
2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:215D:3E5A:B849:228F (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When did it started?[edit]

I cannot comprehend this license. Is this a new-generation copyleft license, which was made simpler than GPL? Or it this a very old license, and it is simple because software licenses were not that complex back in that time? So, when was the MIT license first used?

bad-written is editor's interpretation[edit]

The source says a lot of things, but that comment isn't there. TEDickey (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you. However there is no question that it would be an "unconventional" patent licence. One of the other sources said "badly-written" which in any case does not make the article better-informed. Updated. Dan Shearer (talk) 08:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MIT-X11 vs Expat[edit]

Referring to MIT-X11's difference from Expat as an additional clause re-raises the misinformation that MIT-X11 was derived in some manner from Expat (which is hard to do some MIT-X11 preceded Expat by a few years) TEDickey (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I've just fixed it. Libnoon (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edit appears to have the same content (not fixed) TEDickey (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did invert the phrase though, saying that Expat was like X11 except the last clause was removed. Or do you think I should simply remove the phrase? Sorry, I'm used to submitting pull requests but I'm more a newbie about Wiki edition in Wikipedia, please bear with me... --Libnoon (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not so: the text said otherwise:
Software that present themselves as having the "MIT License" often actually use a customization of the Expat license, by adding a clause at the end.

and goes on to say "For example, ncurses includes the following clause". However, the given source gives a timeline showing when the different licenses were first used. Lacking a reliable source providing a credible earlier date, all that one might say is that the Expat licence, first used a few years after the X11R6 license, used the same text but omitted a given clause. Saying that the (earlier) license added a clause is misleading the reader TEDickey (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course, if you were able to find a credible source using the same license text used and published earlier say, than mid-1997, that might be interesting to discuss. But there appears to be no use of that text for Expat before late 2000 (more than 3 years). TEDickey (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tedickey: Oh, I see my mistake now, indeed... --Libnoon (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


According to github's advanced search, more than 5 million repositories (not counting forks) use the MIT license, more than ten times the number using GPL 2.0 and more than 20 times the number using any form of BSD. There are other measures of significance, but by most of them MIT ranks pretty highly.

I don't know how the values are determined for "WikiProject Computing |class=C |importance=low" but this doesn't seem quite right.

now-dissolved, etc[edit]

As I recall it, the current wording on X.Org's copyright notices came in around 2010, which leaves a little bit of explaining to do between the end of X Consortium and the "updated" copyright notice. TEDickey (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reversing order of events as an editorial problem[edit]

Stating that the X11 license is the MIT license with a clause added is factually incorrect, and removing reliable sources to prove that is not a constructive change TEDickey (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see, yes, that is chronologically backwards. Are you ok with the chronology corrected and the same fact observed? Because that is a significant sentence (c.f. "obnoxious BSD advertising clause", and similar hot debates back in the day).

Dan Shearer (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"obnoxious" doesn't apply in this instance (it's a different issue altogether, which is explained in the topic on BSD license). If you've found improved reliable sources regarding the Expat license, that's something to discuss. Likewise, any insight for the reader on how OSI happened to rename s/Expat/MIT/ would also be interesting. TEDickey (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Stating that the X11 license is the MIT license with a clause added is factually incorrect

Just to confirm: @Tedickey as stated above you are correct. I noticed a seemingly-reliable source that also gets this wrong, The FSF license page . Perhaps that's where I got confused. I don't have any authoritative sources yet tho.

I think a diagram would really help if we can get the data. And as I cited sources to support, MIT covers many tens of millions of lines of actively-developed code, so it is a live issue. If there was a problem tomorrow the first thing the lawyers would do is establish this license family tree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanShearer (talkcontribs) 16:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FPA license[edit]

A recent edit was promotional because it is used to advertise a single organization, unlikely to be used by bona-fide third-parties TEDickey (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FPA License can be found on the SPDX website as an MIT-style license. Used in open-source educational projects. Eazibaek (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not on the SPDX website. Your edit points to Fairfield programming. Perhaps you were referring to some mailing-list comment, perhaps not. Either way, the edits are as noted not an improvement TEDickey (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]