Re: New 'Public Domain' Licence
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 12:53:34PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
> > > included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software].
> > The part above is almost a no-op, and a good idea regardless, because
> > it informs recipients of the work what their rights are, and enables
> > them to sanely to exercise the granted rights upon the work.
> telling me that I can freely distribute the part that is Lua has no
> value, since I can't actually do so (it's tucked away inside a
> binary; if I want Lua, I'll go download the source).
The" value" it has is informing you that some part of that codebase is
"Lua" and that you can go download the source to "Lua" to get at that
part of the codebase... or, you can reverse engineer that portion of
the code to get back at "Lua"... or exercise any other right (useful
or not) that the MIT license gives you. [Most of this issue here is
just a straight forward problem with non-copyleft licenses...]
> Also, due to license proliferation, different MIT-ish projects are
> actually under a collection of slightly varying permissive licenses,
Yeah, the rest of this is really a problem with license promulgation,
which is something that modifying the MIT isn't going to help with at
The solution to a problem changes the problem.
-- Peer's Law