Talk:MIT License
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Suggest that someone creates a section explaining the freedoms and restrictions of this license, rather than just the quoted licence. Perhaps a comparison to GPL/LGPL/BSD.
I created this page based on the Open Source Initiative's definition of the MIT License. However, I now notice that the Free Software Foundation considers the name "MIT License" ambiguous. So, I'll update the page (soon) with that dispute in mind. -- Mattworld 00:15, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Aside: I now recall that I didn't create the page, but greatly improved upon it from a piece of source text. -- Mattworld 00:17, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I added a very short, simple intro sentence so the casual reader will know if this is an article they want to read. It may need a little fleshing out from more knowledgable writers (a mention of open source, perhaps) - but please, keep it short and easy, aimed at the non-technical reader. Those who already know what the license is and seek more details can skip the intro, but those who are clueless need some context. DavidWBrooks 14:12, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Anyone fancy adding a comparison with the GPL? It seems an obvious and important point of comparison, unless I'm missing something... Oolong 16:18, 19 May 2005 (BST)
Question about the BSD-MIT-comparison: does this text have to appear in binary distributions of the software. I'm asking because the BSD-license makes an extra clause for this situation. - 84.179.201.32 19:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] x.org reorg
http://wiki.x.org/Downloads_terms.html ( old site of X license ) doesn't show up anymore, but archive.org archive of http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html still does, and is different than the text of this license.
[edit] Could someone try staring a "variations" section?
I know XFree86 use a modified version of the MIT license, and since there are so many names for this license, I guess that others will also have modified it. This seems to be worth starting a section about. Gronky 16:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Public Domain?
What's the difference between this license and public domain? --Zarel 15:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's an explicit copyright license (which removes any uncertainty about whether the work is in the public domain or not), it disclaims warranty (which you can't do with a public domain work -- although the case law that started the whole warranty disclaimer thing may not apply to public domain works), and it tells you that you can't claim that it's MIT's or BSD's work. RussNelson 15:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
