Re: most liberal license

[Harald Geyer <Harald.Geyer@gmx.at>]

> > * Even worse, you are required to include the permission notice, thus
> >   it is half way towards copyleft. (I.e. it doesn't affect other
> >   software, but still you can't sell it in a proprietary way.)
> 
> You can take MIT-licensed software and sell it to people without providing
> source, and you don't have to place your modifications under the same
> license; you can place them under a heavily restrictive EULA.  If that's
> not "selling in a proprietary way", could you please explain what you
> mean by that?
 
It says you have to include the permission notice in any "substantial
portions of the Software" no matter if source or binary only.
I think this make merging the Software into some proprietary product
quite difficult.
 
But even worse is the issue with your statement below:
 
> (You can never take someone else's work, place restrictions on it and
> sell it.  Nobody but the copyright holder has the ability to do that;
> if a work is in the public domain, nobody can.  You can only place
> restrictions on your modifications, which the MIT license allows you to
> do.)

Perhaps you can't claim copyright of a copy of something you are not
the copyright holder, because simply copying is no intellectual work
at all. But proprietary software is often not only restricted by
copyright but by an EULA which actually is a contract.

By such a contract you can restrict copying of something you actually
are not the copyright holder. But I don't see how you could do this
while still including the permission notice.

> The MIT license is in no way a copyleft.

Half way is no way, isn't it? ;)

Harald