3

I know the MIT license is suitable for code and its associated documentation.

However, is it suitable for an open source specification (without any code)? Or should I use a different license (and what license in that case)?

If I create an open source implementation of my specification, must I include both an MIT license for the code and the license of the specification I'm implementing?

5

must I include [...] an MIT license for the [...] license of the specification I'm implementing

Categorically, no. The license of the text of a specification has zero influence on the license of any implementations of the specification. You can have an GPL implementation of a proprietary specification, and you can have a proprietary implementation of a GFDL specification.

The only exceptions to this would be:

  1. Patents.
  2. Anything where you copy example code from the specification.
  • 4
    Patents are actually a very good reason to be discerning in your choice of license for the spec. For example, the Apache license might be a better choice than the MIT license, although it has the disadvantage of being substantially longer. – Kevin Jun 5 at 18:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.