1. 32

As commented on the previous submission, the author has gone on to write a license.

  1.  

  2. 7

    There’s one line of the MIT license I always wondered about:

    The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

    So “the above copyright notice” is the Copyright (c) part. If I add myself to that list of copyright holders, am I still including “the above copyright notice”? Or am I including a different copyright notice? Same question applies if I add my own “Copyright (c) 2019 caleb” line. Do two such lines constitute two different copyright notices, or a single copyright notice? Does the above quoted line refer to the original copyright notice consisting of a single Copyright (c) … line, or the new version consisting of two lines? Or both?

    Practically, if I fork a MIT licensed project, can I just add my name to the copyright notice? Or do I have to include the copyright notice and license unmodified, and add my own license and copyright notice?

    1. 1

      We know it’s good =)

      1. 2

        Perhaps. But most don’t really understand the implications.

        When a maintainer of a popular npm library turned over the github repo to someone who offered to maintain it, the new maintainer turned out to be an unknown person who added malware to the package.

        People tried to hold the original maintainer responsible: to shame him, to say he was irresponsible, and so on.

        The license is an explicit protection. It serves to also give a fortification against those kinds of social consequences, by pointing out that we all abide by the terms. “The Software is provided “as is”, without warranty of any kind, express or implied.”

        1. 1

          If you read the license is clearly says ‘as is’.

      2. 1

        I’ve read a few good things about Blue Oak but the author’s posts seem very condescending to me. I mean, sure, they might be right - I am not a lawyer, I’m just a guy reading up on FLOSS licenses for many years.

        I think if one wants to change people’s minds, maybe try persuading them and not pushing your own n+1 license over everything. Also maybe get at least a few other people involved who agree so it doesn’t totally look like one person’s agenda? I’ve literally seen it mentioned by 0 other people who I regard as license “experts”. Or maybe we’re all relying too much on OSI?

        Stories with similar links:

        1. The MIT License, Line by Line via bentley 5 years ago | 36 points | 2 comments