MIT license
-
Anybody know much about the MIT license[^]? Ruby on Rails is licensed under it and Brian and I were wondering whether the MIT license would allow continuation of Rails even if the founders declared it finished and klaar. i.e. if 37signals went a bit senile (which they seem to be going[^]) and did things nobody else agreed with could a Rugby on Rails project based on the Ruby on Rails code be launched without say so from 37signals? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
Anybody know much about the MIT license[^]? Ruby on Rails is licensed under it and Brian and I were wondering whether the MIT license would allow continuation of Rails even if the founders declared it finished and klaar. i.e. if 37signals went a bit senile (which they seem to be going[^]) and did things nobody else agreed with could a Rugby on Rails project based on the Ruby on Rails code be launched without say so from 37signals? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
I'm no lawyer, but to me it looks like derivation is not explicitly allowed by the licence and therefore the right is retained by the copyright holders, and would not be permitted. OK, I'm an idiot: "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder -- modified at 6:57 Thursday 2nd February, 2006
-
I'm no lawyer, but to me it looks like derivation is not explicitly allowed by the licence and therefore the right is retained by the copyright holders, and would not be permitted. OK, I'm an idiot: "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder -- modified at 6:57 Thursday 2nd February, 2006
Well you aren't an idiot as we were wondering about that word "modify." Next to it is "merge" which is the opposite of what we may want to do, which is to "branch." No mention is made of branching or derivative works. "Publish" though sounds good. Maybe that is the word that gives us the right. Ugh, damned licenses. Why can't they say "Do whatever you want with it just don't blame us if it breaks anything." regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
Well you aren't an idiot as we were wondering about that word "modify." Next to it is "merge" which is the opposite of what we may want to do, which is to "branch." No mention is made of branching or derivative works. "Publish" though sounds good. Maybe that is the word that gives us the right. Ugh, damned licenses. Why can't they say "Do whatever you want with it just don't blame us if it breaks anything." regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
"Do whatever you want with it just don't blame us if it breaks anything." That's pretty much what the MIT license is. The BSD license is quite similar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License[^] So yes, building Rugby on Rails would be allowed *if* you don't claim it's endorsed and/or written by the current RoR developers. I'm not sure about the name though - because Rugby/Ruby is so similar endorsement may be implied. Then again, IANAL.
-
"Do whatever you want with it just don't blame us if it breaks anything." That's pretty much what the MIT license is. The BSD license is quite similar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License[^] So yes, building Rugby on Rails would be allowed *if* you don't claim it's endorsed and/or written by the current RoR developers. I'm not sure about the name though - because Rugby/Ruby is so similar endorsement may be implied. Then again, IANAL.
Thanks GUID. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
Anybody know much about the MIT license[^]? Ruby on Rails is licensed under it and Brian and I were wondering whether the MIT license would allow continuation of Rails even if the founders declared it finished and klaar. i.e. if 37signals went a bit senile (which they seem to be going[^]) and did things nobody else agreed with could a Rugby on Rails project based on the Ruby on Rails code be launched without say so from 37signals? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
Paul Watson wrote:
if 37signals went a bit senile (which they seem to be going[^]) and did things nobody else agreed with could a Rugby on Rails project based on the Ruby on Rails code be launched without say so from 37signals?
:confused::omg::wtf: Ok I lost you there, why should you care about them?
-
Paul Watson wrote:
if 37signals went a bit senile (which they seem to be going[^]) and did things nobody else agreed with could a Rugby on Rails project based on the Ruby on Rails code be launched without say so from 37signals?
:confused::omg::wtf: Ok I lost you there, why should you care about them?
leppie wrote:
Ok I lost you there, why should you care about them?
Because if we want to branch the project but the license prohibits it then it would be illegal. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
-
Well you aren't an idiot as we were wondering about that word "modify." Next to it is "merge" which is the opposite of what we may want to do, which is to "branch." No mention is made of branching or derivative works. "Publish" though sounds good. Maybe that is the word that gives us the right. Ugh, damned licenses. Why can't they say "Do whatever you want with it just don't blame us if it breaks anything." regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
Hence the glory of the BSD License :) ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!