Permanently Deleted

    • Rustmilian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      MIT is technically copy"left".
      Do you perhaps mean you only support protective/restrictive copyleft?

      • Andy@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I checked the wiki page you kind of linked, and the third sentence is:

        Unlike copyleft software licenses, the MIT License also permits reuse within proprietary software, provided that all copies of the software or its substantial portions include a copy of the terms of the MIT License and also a copyright notice.

        • Rustmilian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Because It’s a permissive copy"left" license…
          Do you perhaps not know the difference between restrictive/protective & permissive copyleft? MIT is just permissive unlike GPL which is protective/restrictive.
          There’s even the MIT X11 License variation that adds restrictive bits.

          • Andy@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, I don’t. I don’t know the strict definition of copyleft, so I went to the source you indicated to get a better understanding. And the phrase I found there:

            Unlike copyleft software licenses, the MIT License . . .

            certainly indicates that the MIT License is not copyleft.

              • Andy@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                The Wikipedia link you provide here for copyleft does not say that permissive licenses are a subset of copyleft licenses, but rather contrasts the two categories. For example, you can scroll down to the table at “Types and relation to other licenses,” where you can see MIT is not in the green Copyleft column.

                If you check Wikipedia’s Copyleft software licenses category, you’ll see MIT is absent.

                The Wikipedia link you provide for permissive states:

                The Open Source Initiative defines a permissive software license as a "non-copyleft license . . .

                • Rustmilian@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  What I’m saying is that MIT is a "Left"copy/open/free license, sure it’s not categorized as a literal “copyleft” license but it’s easy to interchange the use of “copyleft” to include the sister-category. That’s why I asked if they meant protective/restrictive copyleft licenses. Sorry if I wasn’t being clear.