Talk:MIT License

x.org reorg

http://wiki.x.org/Downloads_terms.html ( old site of X license ) doesn't show up anymore, but archive.org archive of http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html still does, and is different than the text of this license.

When did it started?

I cannot comprehend this license. Is this a new-generation copyleft license, which was made simpler than GPL? Or it this a very old license, and it is simple because software licenses were not that complex back in that time? So, when was the MIT license first used?

Significance

According to github's advanced search, more than 5 million repositories (not counting forks) use the MIT license, more than ten times the number using GPL 2.0 and more than 20 times the number using any form of BSD. There are other measures of significance, but by most of them MIT ranks pretty highly.

I don't know how the values are determined for "WikiProject Computing |class=C |importance=low" but this doesn't seem quite right.

FPA license

A recent edit was promotional because it is used to advertise a single organization, unlikely to be used by bona-fide third-parties TEDickey (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

FPA License can be found on the SPDX website as an MIT-style license. Used in open-source educational projects. Eazibaek (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not on the SPDX website. Your edit points to Fairfield programming. Perhaps you were referring to some mailing-list comment, perhaps not. Either way, the edits are as noted not an improvement TEDickey (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Remove license name "MIT No Attribution" from license text

The license text for the MIT No Attribution license in this article starts with the name of the license. This is inconsistent with the other licenses. The name is indeed included on SPDX (using a special colour) but that's the case with the original MIT and other licenses as well. The name is not included in the license text on the OSI page. I could have gone ahead and made the change myself but I wasn't sure if some of the citations would have to be updated as well. 185.205.224.133 (talk) 10:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

License

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. 2001:448A:1067:5B09:46A:EB95:BAEE:2A69 (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Addition potential

https://www.voidtools.com/ - this software is technically license under MIT license, but with no source provided. It doesn't look like the license requires providing means to change software/source code. Source code is not technically necessary to modify software. I would like to ask for advice, if such information should be included in the article.

--Luhanopi (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It is off-topic TEDickey (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

This software yes. But that works can be MIT-licensed and not source-available maybe. Luhanopi (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2024 (UTC)