On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 06:19:36PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > There's no such thing as a copyleft MIT license. Fundamental to the > > concept of the MIT/BSD license is that they're permissive--they let > > you do whatever you want, placing very few restrictions on the work. > > "Permissive" and "copyleft" are conflicting adjectives for a license, > > in my opinion. > > It's more or less a clone of the MIT license, but with a copyleft > clause tacked on.
Which makes it nothing at all like the MIT license, despite looking similar. I'm only nitpicking on this point because I don't want unnecessary confusion over the BSD and MIT licenses. This is one reason I didn't like the "BSDPL"; the "BSD" name associated it with the BSD license despite having nothing in common with it, which can confuse casual licensors (most free software authors). -- Glenn Maynard
