Why isn't MIT license considered copyleft?
pimmhogeling at gmail.com
Wed Apr 21 10:57:19 UTC 2010
The Wikipedia article about copyleft states that "Copyleft type licenses are
a novel use of existing copyright law to ensure a work remains freely
available." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft)
The X11/MIT license obligates a licensee to include the license in every
copy, but this does not ensure that the work remains freely available. For
instance, one could create something using or based on an X11/MIT licensed
work. The resulting work does not have to be "freely available".
I hope this helps,
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 11:41, <opensource.*.nwo at neverbox.com> wrote:
> Why is MIT license considered non Copyleft (for example, by Wikipedia), if
> it dictates the license
> must be kept in every redistrubution?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss