>>-----Original Message----- >>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] >>On Behalf Of Richard Fontana >>Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 11:08 AM >>To: mas...@opensource.org; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License licenses
>>For example, for the MIT license: >>(1) No submitter -- the MIT license was grandfathered in by the original OSI >>board >>(2) No nominal copyright owner >>(3) Despite its name, MIT does not appear to have authored the MIT license, >>based on the historical research I've done -- somewhat important because in >>later times I believe the MIT tech transfer office itself assumed -- based on >>the name popularized by the OSI itself -- that it had authored the MIT >>license, and also more recently some of the members of the "open source >>licenses can be copyright only" camp wish to argue that the MIT license >>should be read as a "copyright only" license because the present-day MIT tech >>transfer office supposedly takes that view. MIT is not the license steward of >>the MIT license -- there is no license steward -- which is separate from but >>closely related to the authorship and copyright ownership issue. Here's some MIT license archeology: https://opensource.com/article/19/4/history-mit-license Be interesting to see one on BSD too, although I didn't see a similar one using some quick web inquiries. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
