Re: About a license of a package.
Muammar El Khatib <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Talking about MIT license, I should encourage copyright holder to
> change from 'MIT mesh' to the 'MIT Expat' instead, right? Please, if
> I am wrong correct me.
No, that's confusing two issues, both of which are not essential but
would clarify the terms.
I pointed out that the name "MIT License" is less suitable than "terms
of the Expat license", because the latter is less ambiguous and refers
to exactly the same license terms as they're using. This can be fixed
by changing the license grant to:
MakeHuman Mesh is released under the terms of the Expat license.
Separately, Francesco was (IIUC) pointing out that those license
terms, as you presented them, define the term "Mesh" to refer to the
software work, when that term is not typically used in such a way. It
would be far clearer to instead use the more typical term "Software"
or "Work" in the license terms.
> Thank you for helping.
All the best with helping the upstream developers clarify these terms.
\ "If you ever fall off the Sears Tower, just go real limp, |
`\ because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will try to |
_o__) catch you because, hey, free dummy." —Jack Handey |