Search Results

Code that you write does not need to be licensed under the MIT license. The original code that you received under the MIT license must remain under the MIT license. … So, you must preserve the MIT license and copyright notice as long as you have someone else's MIT-licensed work in your project. …

The MIT licenses does not need to apply to your software. … terms, as long as you preserve the MIT notices. …

The MIT license (i.e., the terms under which Steve Donovan offers gentle-intro) says Permission is hereby granted [...] to deal in the Software without restriction, including [...] the rights to use, …

Strictly from a copyright perspective, I know of no impediment to the copyrightability of malicious code. In patent law, there is a requirement of an invention to possess "moral utility" -- that is, …

The project's license says: Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software... to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or s …

The license does not allow you to remove the text of the MIT license from MIT-licensed software, so it seems unlikely that you could sensibly change the terms of the license while unable to lexically remove …

However, the MIT license includes the right to "sublicense" the work, which suggests I may be able to offer the MIT-licensed work to others under different licensing terms. Is this correct? …

You must retain the notice and make it clear (at least by the name of the library) which code the MIT license terms apply to. … You do not need to make the MIT license terms apply to the software as a whole. (If a license does require this, we call it a "copyleft" license. The MIT license is not a copyleft license.) …

However, rest assured that with the MIT/X11 license, you will be free to distribute your software as well, if you choose to do so in the future. …

If the author(s) of library Y really did license library Y to the author of library X under permissive MIT X11 terms (and assuming Y doesn't retroactively try to deny that they did so), then you have nothing … The fact that there are GPL headers in the code doesn't diminish the fact that project Y has dual-licensed their code under your option of the GPL or MIT. …

Yes, the other person is allowed to licence their own improvements under the MIT X11 license (or really any license, since code under 3- and 2-clause BSD licenses may happily stand alongside other code … In practice, I'm not really sure why the downstream author didn't just keep their changes under BSD as well, since it is more or less identical in effect to MIT X11. …

Since the MIT license is GPL-compatible, an author is certainly allowed to license their own work under the MIT license and combine it with a GPL-licensed work. … In this case, the work as a whole is GPL-licensed, though the author offers some parts of the work under the MIT license as well. …

However, since you offer the software under permissive MIT/X11 terms as well, this request is a little stranger. They already have the option to avoid copyleft source-sharing requirements. … This is likely either a case of corporate paranoia or brittleness about open source, or they don't understand that they can choose the MIT license to avoid copyleft requirements. …

A permissive license like MIT/X11 is a perfectly suitable choice. Consider that permissively-licensed code may be freely combined with proprietary components. The situation is no different here. … (If you wanted to use a copyleft license like the GNU GPL, you might need to grant an exception to allow distribution of your GPL'd code with the nonfree assets, but a permissive license like MIT/X11 already …

It is not necessary to have contributors assign their copyright to you, as long as the contributions are licensed under sufficiently permissive terms that permit you to use them and distribute them un …