Permanently Deleted

  • 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.