Re: most liberal license
On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 09:32:27AM +0200, Harald Geyer wrote:
> [ Please keep me on cc as I'm not subscribed ]
Please set your Mail-Followup-To mail header.
> * 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?
(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.)
The MIT license is in no way a copyleft.
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: