Edit - Software Engineering Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

3

I agree, read the license, it's short: opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html
– Ben Blank
Commented Apr 1, 2009 at 18:32
19

Jox, I pasted the ENTIRE license above so you can see for yourself. BSD/MIT/ISC style licensed software have been included in Mac OS, Windows, etc... You cannot remove the license/copyright, but you can do pretty much anything else. It's not viral.
– dwc
Commented Apr 2, 2009 at 15:19
21

As a non-native English speaker, I've been confused by the MIT license as well. The confusion stems from the fact that the license talks about the 'Software' to which the license applies. So if I link to MIT-licensed 'Software' and distribute a derivative + MIT license (mandatory) then this implies that the derivative would become the 'Software' according to the license. To be clear: there is no mention of source code\binary distribution anywhere, just 'Software'.
– pauluss86
Commented Jul 7, 2013 at 17:37
58

Even as a native speaker, I found it difficult to understand. If the permission notice has to be included in all copies of the software, and if compiled binaries are still "copies of the software", then seemingly the permission notice has to be included with your compiled binaries. If you are including the permission notice, then seemingly you are giving recipients permission to copy "the software" -- i.e. both the MIT-licensed library software and your own software together. I know that this is not the intent of the license ... but still, it is confusing to the literal minded such as myself.
– William Payne
Commented Aug 12, 2013 at 16:33
9

You ask that people read the license, but nowhere do I see support for your point (3) that the license rights only transitively extend to people receiving source copies of the software, rather than binary copies. In fact, there is no distinction at all between "source" and "binary" at all in the license. Furthermore, software is commonly understood as meaning both the source and binary forms when considering the notice clause, so it be very odd for it to have the opposite meaning elsewhere in the license.
– BeeOnRope
Commented Jun 17, 2016 at 22:45

| Show 3 more comments

Correct minor typos or mistakes
Clarify meaning without changing it
Add related resources or links
Always respect the author’s intent
Don’t use edits to reply to the author

create code fences with backticks ` or tildes ~
```
like so
```
add language identifier to highlight code
```python
def function(foo):
print(foo)
```
put returns between paragraphs
for linebreak add 2 spaces at end
_italic_ or **bold**
indent code by 4 spaces
backtick escapes `like _so_`
quote by placing > at start of line
to make links (use https whenever possible)
<https://example.com>
[example](https://example.com)
<a href="https://example.com">example</a>

formatting help »
answering help »