The MIT license (actually on topic)

[David Given <dg@...>]

I discovered recently there's actually an unpleasant ambiguity in the
MIT license. Specifically, this line:

> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
> included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

The problem is that it doesn't specify whether the clause applies to
*source* distributions only, or to *binary* distributions as well. In
other words, if I build Lua into a program of mine, and distribute the
program as an executable, am I required to include the copyright notice
with the program?

In even more other words, is the license equivalent to the one-clause
BSD license or the two-clause BSD license?

I've shaken the 'net and it always comes up 'reply hazy, try again
later'. Some people say yes, some say no.

What's the intent of the Lua authors here --- do you want attribution in
binaries or not? (I do notice you say on the Licensing page on the
website 'you should give us credit by including the appropriate
copyright notice somewhere in your product or its documentation', but
that's not *quite* the same thing.) Do you feel this ambiguity is worth
worrying about?



(For reference, this link:

http://urchin.earth.li/~twic/The_Amazing_Disappearing_BSD_License.html

...documents all the various forms of the BSD license, plus a couple of
the MIT.)

-- 
┌─── ｄｇ＠ｃｏｗｌａｒｋ．ｃｏｍ ───── http://www.cowlark.com ─────
│
│ "I have a mind like a steel trap. It's rusty and full of dead mice."
│ --- Anonymous, on rasfc

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature