MIT License
Larry C.
Posts: 48
Can anyone direct me to an explanation of the "Terms of Use" text block that appears at the end of some SPIN code? What does it imply? Do I need to include it if I am planning to publish some programs I have written? And why?
I apologize if this has been discussed already on this forum, but the search engine on these forums seem almost useless for this kind of thing.
Thanks,
Larry
I apologize if this has been discussed already on this forum, but the search engine on these forums seem almost useless for this kind of thing.
Thanks,
Larry
Comments
MIT basically says:
1. If you download it you can use it for anything you want to, but should credit the original author.
2. If you are the author you make no warranty and incur no liability for what the code does.
3. There are no distribution requirements. You can modify and section the code however you want when you use it. You don't have to include a particular full set of modules, documentation, or source code.
4. If you use the code in your own project, you do not need permission or owe royalties to destribute your new creation that uses it.
-Phil
This includes commercial projects. I believe you can even charge money for software others wrote (if they used a MIT license).
The rule was recently extended to include code posted to the forum as well.
Similarly, I would guess that the only reason I would include the license in any code I may publish would be to protect myself against liability. Does that sound right? I am not concerned about attribution on my behalf. IOW, if anybody uses my stuff, I don't care if they credit me, I just would not like to have somebody claim damages.
Thanks for the insight, localroger.
The main reason is so that their customers are not encumbered by onerous licensing requirements, while still crediting and protecting the original authors. Parallax is in the business of selling chips. It's in their best interests that any code appearing on their various websites not be awkward or expensive for their customers to use.
-Phil
Yes. The main purpose of the license is to make sure code in the OBEX can be safely used in both personal and commercial projects, making the Propeller itself more useful to everyone. I have even prevailed on my own corporate masters to MIT license a number of things I've written on their dime, on the argument that such sharing is unlikely to be used directly against us by a competitor but it strengthens both Parallax and the Propeller itself as a viable product, both of which are shaping up to be important resources for our future activities.
A few important projects were non-MIT, perhaps most nobably Harrison's ENC28J60 ethernet TCP/IP stack. Fortunately he has since MIT'd it IIRC to enter Thumper into the project contest it won.
MIT developed the license for the very reason Parallax uses it, so that a community could develop with shared code that could be dependably used by anyone in the community even if they were a business selling a product. That's a necessary thing for the Propeller chip to thrive in the market. It doesn't do much good for the chip to be able to emulate say IIC slave in software if the code that does that has a bunch of difficult to observe licensing restrictions. Some people get all control-freaky about this but fortunately my boss has accepted my argument that we take much from the Parallax community and it only makes sense that we give back when we can.
That is true but it's got be thinking it's kind of odd.
Consider,
Probably the biggest and most shared projects of all time is the Linux kernel. It is contibuted to and used by many organizations, commercial and otherwise. Linux is published under the GPL but never forces anyone to provide the sources to their programs if they use it.
Similarly we have things like the standard C library. Again contributed to and used in commercial environments with no demands on the source code of any one who disributes a program using it. This is down to the LGPL which is like a watered down GPL.
We might consider that a lot of code in OBEX is drivers and such which can be seen as bits of operating system for people to use in their projects. Or other things, like F32, are like bits of a standard library.
Why then did Parallax need to use the MIT license to encourage commercial use?
Parallax did the right thing by going with the MIT license; it's the better, surer fit in this instance. GPL is arguably good for some things, but not everything.
I know what you mean. However those guys who are "widley considering" have missed the point that some of the most profitable companies in the world are using GPL'ed code and contributing back to the pool as they go. Sadly it takes that many words to explain it to those who are not used to the idea. Hmmm..In the really good old days of computing there was no closed source.
Source code had to be provided because probably my binaries would not run on your machine.
I don't know when it changed but today it's impossible to put anything you create into the public domain (Unless you are the government). You have the copyright as soon as you create it.
Turns out MIT is a good choice. Perhaps not for the reason you think. If one could use OBEX code without atually including it in ones program, thus creating a "derived work", then LGPL would be just fine.
It's that technical detail of "linkage" that makes all the difference.
Yet need not. It might just well be that the "idea" is a strained version of something most people innately feel they already had an understanding of.
More trouble than it's worth in some cases. MIT is simple and to the point, and does the job here just fine. In the end we agree, Parallax got it right.
Most people think the word "free" applies to themselves. As in they are free to use the code or free to distribute it etc. Clearly that is not true because use of GPL code comes with conditions you have to abide by. Those conditions are a "price" for your usage, that's not exactly free now is it?
Let me put it to you that even those who go with "free as in free speech" are not quite there in their understanding yet.
It's not that you, the receiver of the source code, that is free to use and do what you like with it. It's the source code itself that is free. Free from being locked up and held to ransom in some closed source derivative. Free to go wherever it is welcome and reproduce and spread.
In short: the code is free not the user. And that is why the GPL is incomprehensible to many.
On the other hand, yes, Parallax is right about the MIT for OBEX. Their business is to sell more chips not to promote free software. Good for them, good for us.