121

Releasing a project under the MIT license is giving people permission to fork the project. Part of the philosophy behind free software is to give users and developers the right to use, modify, and release the software in ways that wouldn't normally be allowed. If you don't want people to do this, then don't use the MIT license. You can't really complain when ...


73

Was Xamarin's action and the way the action was done ethical or not? Well, let's ask an expert - The Open Source Initiative's listing of the MIT License itself, with the license quoted in it's entirety: The MIT License (MIT) Copyright (c) Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and ...


62

Yes, this is covered by the MIT license and you should contact the author of the derivative work to correct the copyright notice. More precisely, with MIT license, you allow everyone: to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, So, someone can modify and enhance your original software. In this ...


42

The commercial software would need to include the copyright notice for the work it has used. It doesn't mean the entire commercial work is then licensed under the MIT license. For example, I would expect to see the copyright notice for the commercial software, with the following wording added: This software includes the Yannbane Awesome Library: ...


33

Many open source applications have closed source licensing options for just this scenario. How much you charge them is dependent on: the size of the company (how much can they afford) what they're going to do with it (if they're stealing it or just using it) what they expect you to do (support/updates/extensions? what contractual level?) a ton of other ...


26

It does not affect LGPL — stands for Lesser GPL (used to mean Library GPL). The significant difference with GPL is, that it doesn't impose the license on software using the library. Only if you'd modify the library or directly include parts of the code in your software, then your code would have to be LGPL. On the other hand if you're just using gem ...


24

From the GPL FAQ (but the advice is applicable to all licenses): Why does the GPL require including a copy of the GPL with every copy of the program? Including a copy of the license with the work is vital so that everyone who gets a copy of the program can know what his rights are. It might be tempting to include a URL that refers to the license,...


22

1) Does the dual license mean that as long as one or the other is satisfied I'm fine, or does it have to be both? Yes. Specifically, jQuery makes it explicit that you can use it even in commercial environment. Why then it is also with GPL? This is because, if someone wants to make additional javascript library using jQuery, he/she can choose GPL license ...


21

I used to be an IP lawyer, so have experience with license-ese. I feel like the terms themselves are fairly readable and understandable, but then again, I'm marred by three years of law school and some lawyering time before getting my wits again and returning to hacking. Particularly since I'm not currently an active lawyer, this certainly isn't intended as ...


21

The fourth paragraph says that the copyright notice in the second paragraph must be reproduced. Users of the licence substitute the [fullname] with their actual name. That is what constitutes "proper attribution" in the mind of the MIT: every user of the software can find out who wrote it if they want to.


20

Short Answer: Yes From the MIT License: Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell ...


20

IANAL but I have discussed this and many similar issues with lawyers enough to have a good idea of what I am talking about here. This is not legal advice. The best background reading is Larry Rosen's book in the context of open source software. Rights, Licenses, Copyright and Sublicenses Under copyright law a copyright holder is granted certain exclusive ...


19

Not quite. Here's the basic idea. As you pointed out, "you can incorporate the software into your proprietary project, but that portion must remain open" under the MIT license. If you have 100 features in your proprietary product, and one of them is based on MIT-licensed code, that's fine. However, if you have 100 features in your product, and one of them ...


18

I wouldn't call it unethical. I would call it unsportsmanlike. There's an unwritten expectation that you will give a good faith effort to improve the original version before deciding to fork, and it seems the original author feels that good faith effort wasn't made. That being said, the best way to avoid your software being forked is to be responsive to ...


16

The copyright owner of a work determines what license to use when distributing their own property (code in this case); so the company can decide to switch to a more restrictive license at any time if they so wish. Note that that does mean they must own all of the work, or have obtained licenses for the code from whomever does own it that grants them the ...


15

I am not a lawyer, but according to the MIT license: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. Therefore you may not remove the existing copyright notice. You may only add your copyright notice and license terms to portions of code that you own the copyright to, which ...


15

The GPL is considered viral because, if you combine software that is licensed under it with proprietary code, you must also open-source your proprietary code under the GPL in order to remain compliant with the GPL. The MIT license doesn't say that at all. I think you might be interpreting the term "The Software" to include your proprietary portion. It ...


14

They can IF they own it. If they have accepted contributions from other users - then they would need the agreement of those other users. This is the point of GPL, you force other people to play nicely with your code, just as you did with theirs. Since the license covers distribution the terms you agreed to when they distributed it to you still apply, they ...


13

Read the license. The MIT license is only a few lines long, and the answer to your question is contained in the license itself. Here's one version from Wikipedia: Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction,...


12

If you published code once under GPL, that version of your code is GPL code, that is nothing you can change again. Someone else (in fact, thousands of people) could have made a copy, that copy is under GPL, the GPL text is part of the code, and you cannot enforce anybody to change his copies "just because you wish to". However, if you create and publish a ...


12

There is not copyleft provision in the MIT license. The MIT license gives you legal permission to use the code without ever distributing any of your source code. Since your project is closed source, very few people will ever see your code, but it is still a good idea to carefully document which portions are owned by someone else. For distributing binaries, ...


11

There's a pretty good answer on Stack Overflow: https://web.archive.org/web/20150901065118/https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1424307/how-does-ms-pl-license-work There's also a decent article on CMS Wire: http://www.cmswire.com/cms/web-development/taking-a-closer-look-at-microsofts-mspl-open-source-license-004248.php The short version of those is ...


11

As a potential employer, this would set off a lot of red flags for me. Proprietary frameworks are typically significantly less used, documented and tested than their competition. More eyes = more bugs found/fixed, more documentation written, etc. It shows you oppose standardization in your community. What's wrong with the existing frameworks? You are ...


11

Was Xamarin's action and the way the action was done ethical or not? A lot of people are conflating the legal and ethical situation. The X11 license allows anyone to "use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so", so this is definitely legal....


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible