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.
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.
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.
First bit, MIT is just classified as the sister-category know as permissive licenses, it’s still on the “left” side of the copyright system.
Does that make sense?
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.
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.
MIT is technically copy"left".
Do you perhaps mean you only support protective/restrictive copyleft?
I checked the wiki page you kind of linked, and the third sentence is:
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.
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:
certainly indicates that the MIT License is not copyleft.
First bit, MIT is just classified as the sister-category know as permissive licenses, it’s still on the “left” side of the copyright system. Does that make sense?
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:
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.