Why you should not use the MIT license

[Evropi]

Before I begin, I just want to tell everyone that I am not a lawyer and by no means claim to be an expert on open source licensing.

I was speaking to Ryan 'Icculus' Gordon recently. I recommended at one point that he relicense one of his programs under the MIT license . He then highlighted a problem with it that I hadn't noticed for a long time.

[...] The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. [...]

Emphasis added on "substantial portions". There is no clarification as to what this is. Does it apply if you just cut and paste some code? Maybe copy parts of a library over but rework them somehow? I'd say dynamic linking is pretty substantial, but really, who defines what is substantial and what isn't?

This is why Ryan uses the zlib license for all of his software. If you don't think zlib's license is permissive enough though, I would definitely suggest the ISC license as an alternative to the MIT license. It offers exactly the same terms in a less verbose manner without the legal uncertainty attached to the MIT license (I quote from the ISC license: "appear in all copies").

The legal uncertainty around the MIT license could cause the license to become void, I believe (unclear on this, but I think that has happened a few times). There are some very large MIT-licensed projects out there like Ruby on Rails and it could prove dangerous. The license does not make it clear what 'substantial' means, and I'd take a clarified license over a weak one like that.

[Julius]

IANAL, but since it says "or" in between the other part e.g. "shall be included in all copies" seems to apply and legally watertight, no?

But IMHO such legal license discussions are pretty moot outside a court and especially on a (FOSS) gaming forum.

Oh and: Just use the GPL

[qubodup]

I'm also confused about worries of "misuse" of permissively licensed software.

Anyways, here's a pod/oggcast that I enjoy immensely, where they cover topics like derivative works and and copyright assignment, although usually in copyleft (GPL) context: http://faif.us/

[devnewton]

Just put every copyright notice, credits and license text in ${MY_GAME}/licenses folder and you will never get trouble.

[Evropi]

IANAL, but since it says "or" in between the other part e.g. "shall be included in all copies" seems to apply and legally watertight, no?

But IMHO such legal license discussions are pretty moot outside a court and especially on a (FOSS) gaming forum.

Oh and: Just use the GPL

The fact is says both and actually states 'substantial portions' separately from 'shall be included in all copies' is an ambiguity. I don't know if that would make it legally watertight, but more important to consider is what this means to a programmer and not a lawyer. That is, it means your work won't be credited and interested people won't be inclined to direct themselves to your MIT-licensed project as no mention of it was made.

By the time it gets to court, it's late. And hey, this is the Legal & Business section for a reason...

As for the GPL, sorry, I have to disagree with you there. Not everyone is a fan of copyleft, but let's not get into that.

I'm also confused about worries of "misuse" of permissively licensed software.

The glory. Permissive licensing is not . It's all about the ego, but without abusing copyright (as in the GNU GPL).

Just put every copyright notice, credits and license text in ${MY_GAME}/licenses folder and you will never get trouble.

The point is that people won't do this because it is not made clear.

[Duion]

So what you should use then? To me all licenses seem to be complicated except for public domain.

[Evropi]

So what you should use then? To me all licenses seem to be complicated except for public domain.

Actually, I said you should use the ISC license (and linked to the text) if you like a very permissive license. :P

Public domain brings a lot of problems and is not advisable.

[Duion]

For me it looks pretty much the same as MIT, you also have to include the license text in every copy. Torque3D for example is MIT license and most code/script files start with a comment where the license is included. ISC license is just a shorter license text.