Re: Copyright question

[Axel Kittenberger <axkibe@...>]

Sorry, thats not true. The binary is obviously a 'substantial portion
(derived from) "the Software"". Any research I did regards the Expat
License (here so called "the MIT License") to be effectively exactly
equal to the 2-clause BSD (without the no-endorse-clause). This
includes the opinion of the FSF as well e.g. the OReilly-Book
http://oreilly.com/openbook/osfreesoft/book/index.html The BSS one is
written more precise in this regards: Redistributions of source code
must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and
the following disclaimer. Redistributions in binary form must
reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions"

Its another forth and back pendelum: People whine, "so much words, so
complicated, no one understands it", than you come up with a short
concise one, people whine "so ambitious, can't it be more clear what
it means if this and that and thus condition?".

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 4:49 PM, KHMan <keinhong@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/24/2011 9:43 PM, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Go back to kindergarden, please, and leave the grown-ups alone.
>>>
>>> So when you run out of arguments, you try to insult?
>>
>> When a thead reaches this stage it's a clear sign that it's time to close
>> it.
>
> Very sorry for pinging here, IIRC from the postings I have received thus far
> nobody seems to have sorted out the "MIT License" thread and I have purged
> those postings already...
>
> If anyone out there is still doubting the scope of displaying the license,
> please read the license carefully from the beginning, as you would any legal
> document.
>
> "Software" is carefully defined to be constrained only to what is being
> distributed and hence does not impinge on binaries. I do not believe that a
> loophole has been found after so many years of scrutiny.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
> Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>
>