Re: [License-discuss] MIT-Clone: Copyright notice

Quoting Jasper Horn (jasperh...@gmail.com): > What do you people think about this? Since you ask: IMO, the optimal solution to your problem is to cease obsessing over MIT License copyright notices -- which are in the short term doing no harm and over the long term will tend to do positive good

Re: [License-discuss] MIT-Clone: Copyright notice

I bet when copyright was first created, the working assumption is that a work is a relatively static thing. Software is not. And this brings up the Ship of Theseus problem (Take a ship, replace all the boards. at what point is it no longer the same sh

Re: [License-discuss] MIT-Clone: Copyright notice

> > Yet, this cannot be fixed because the license prohibits it. > While the MIT license stipulates that “the above copyright notice” shall be included, I see nothing that prevents the copyright notice from being amended to list additional copyright holders. It seems to be common practice to add an

[License-discuss] MIT-Clone: Copyright notice

Hello all, I've always liked the MIT license. There is one thing that bothers me about it, though: the copyright notice. Often, the copyright notice refers to author of some initial files, while the copyright is actually spread over many contributors. Yet, this cannot be fixed because the license