Starting again as SE didn't grab my user nameIt is generally accepted that 'the software' in the MIT license refers to 'the source code', but unfortunately not generally enough. Also, for interpreted languages (such as Javascript) 'substantial portions of the initial questionSoftware' are technically copied to the client's machine, and merging user names merged my question and answer into a big messso the only way to maintain compliance is to put the license in the Javascript.
I am a developerI'm not aware of anyone actually doing this; the license is typically just put in the repo.
The problem is highlightedAnyway, to remove ambiguity, I suggest changing the following in these tickets:the MIT license.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2190058/do-i-need-to-refer-to-the-mit-license-on-my-website Change
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39108197/do-i-need-to-state-that-i-parts-of-my-code-are-under-the-mit-licensethis software and associated documentation files (the "Software")
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/9189/respecting-mit-license-in-javascript-files to
Where to put license for MIT licensed code on websitethis source code and associated documentation files (the "Software")
https://www.reddit.com/r/jquery/comments/4j8yes/noob_question_where_do_i_have_to_cite_the_mit/?rdt=47780 Add the following definition of source code.
Most just quote'Source code' is defined as a modifiable set of instructions that can be easily understood by a developer, and has some or all of the following properties:
- Comments to explain the functionality.
- Whitespace to help readability.
- Variable and function names contain descriptive nouns and verbs.
From the above definition, any source code that has undergone obfuscation, minification, compilation, encryption, or other significant transformation can no longer be considered source code.
To comply with this license, this text must reside inside the folder structure of your source code and distributed with it.
Resulting in - https://github.com/JohnJScott/Eternal/blob/master/LICENSE
Does this fix it? Suggestions/fixes/improvements? I'd argue this is the intent and the practical application of the MIT license back, which is unhelpfulanyway.
What I would likeCheers John
Several points:
That should be proposed SPDX code.
"It is generally accepted..." - citation required
Ask CoPilot - "does "the software" in the mit license refer to the source code?"
"Yes, in the MIT License, the term “the software” refers to the source code. The MIT License is a permissive software license that is asoriginated at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the late 1980s. As a permissive license, it places very few restrictions on reuse, making it highly compatible with other licenses. Unlike copyleft licenses, such as the GNU General Public License (GPL), the MIT License also permits reuse within proprietary software, butas long as the only obligationterms of the license and the copyright notice are included in all copies or substantial portions of the software1. So, when you encounter the phrase “the software” in the MIT License, it specifically pertains to the source code and associated documentation files. 🌟"
I don't believe that many people take this view. In fact, you're the first I've ever heard of.
Until Friday, I had never heard of anyone who didn't take this view.
(and provide the proper acknowledgement in/with the distributed binaries)
I've yet to find a site that does this - please give an example. Also, Unreal Engine games don't provide the proper acknowledgment - again, unless an example can be provided. You'd be looking for a subset of the files distributed with the source here - https://github.com/EpicGames/UnrealEngine/tree/release/Engine/Source/ThirdParty/Licenses
Common practice (whether right or wrong) is to put the license file within your source coderepo for if you ever redist your source, and NOT withno acknowledgment if it's compiled into a binary.
The intent is the shipped productcode can be used for anything (such as compiledincluding compiling and distributing the binaries), but to comply with the license you have to include the license with your source code, but not any binaries or web sites). What would this license be? ThereThe intent is that there should be no requirement at all to releasemake the source code.
I'll leave my comments about accepted standard practice and other points until later available.
This site uses jQueryThe viral GPL is out - wherebut is the MITthere another license text to makethat would accomplish this site compliant with the license?
Cheers
John John
