Re: most liberal license
If we need to discuss MIT-License in length, there probably should be
a new thread about this. However I'm still looking forward to recieve
answers to my initial question.
> > 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.
>
> Software under that license is distributed as part of Windows XP.
> Clearly it's not insurmountable. That permission notice applies only
> to the code covered by the licensor's copyright, not to other works
> merged with it.
I never said it's insurmountable, but that it is a serious burden.
Also Microsoft is not known for respecting others IP very well.
> > 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.
>
> Sure you can. The permission notice is included. But I'll pet this
> cat here for you if you agree not to exercise it.
Well, that might be one interpretation. If one interprets "include
the permisssion notice" in this way, than it's just some strange kind
of advertisement clause: Text with no legal effect hast to be
included in a derived work.
But I think the interpretation that including the permission notice
means not restricting the covered rights is as valid as yours. In fact
we have seen crazier interpretations of license texts.
(pine, dynamic linking, ...)
> No. It really is just a public license. You're objecting to the
> parts which make it such -- the fact that the license to the MIT
> licensed code is extended to anyone who receives it.
I've listed several issues, which I dislike about MIT-License. One
is discussed no at length. However I don't see how I object to the
above.
> But that's not a
> copyleft, just your inability to mess with the license granted by MIT.
I guess that is true, hence this disussion.
Harald
Reply to: