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.
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.