<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.hoenzb
{mso-style-name:hoenzb;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Nirk Niggler asked:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>> </span>I realize including the entire contents is repetitive, but is there <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>> an official statement or court case that would justify merely<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>> saying MIT rather than including the full license? <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Is there an official statement or court case that would justify going 56 MPH in a 55 MPH zone? Are you likely to be arrested for doing so? Will the judge impose a high fine?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Don’t quote me.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>/Larry<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Nirk Niggler [mailto:nirk.niggler@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Saturday, June 08, 2013 1:18 PM<br><b>To:</b> license-discuss@opensource.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [License-discuss] Acceptable LICENSE citation<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Chuck, thanks for your reply.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I definitely have seen many people just follow option (2) but my current understanding is that it is actually unacceptable for MIT license (regardless of how many people do it). <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>GPL, for example, goes out of the way to say that it is permissible to indicate "how to view a copy of this License", which admits the interpretation that simply linking to a GPL license is sufficient. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>MIT explicitly says "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software", which I interpret to mean that the entirety of the MIT license must be included.<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I realize including the entire contents is repetitive, but is there an official statement or court case that would justify merely saying MIT rather than including the full license? <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Chuck Swiger <<a href="mailto:chuck@codefab.com" target="_blank">chuck@codefab.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Hi, NN--<br><br>On Jun 7, 2013, at 8:40 AM, Nirk Niggler <<a href="mailto:nirk.niggler@gmail.com">nirk.niggler@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> [ ... ]<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>> Lots of people are releasing code under the MIT license, which is great (at least they remember to apply a license :)<br>><br>> However, I've seen people try to apply it in different ways:<br>><br>> 1) just saying "License: MIT" in a README<br>><br>> 2) just saying "License: MIT" in the source code<br>><br>> 3) attaching a LICENSE file to the repository<br>><br>> 4) putting the license text in the README<br>><br>> 5) putting the license text in the source code<br>><br>> The MIT license itself explicitly states that the license text must be included in copies of the software, so option (5) is acceptable. Are any of the other options acceptable? This wouldn't normally strike me as odd, but some licenses like GPL explicitly permit users to reference the license.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal>It's very common for developers to have a short comment block at the top of each file listing author, copyright + license, and maybe a version/revision/$Id: $ tag; many IDEs and revision control systems will create and even populate such fields in a template automatically. That's your option (2).<br><br>People using software under licenses which are many pages long almost always invoke the license by reference. For software licensed under terms like the BSD/MIT/zlib/X11/etc which fit on a single page, including the license terms directly aka option (5) is fairly common.<br><br>Your option numbering scheme has a fortuitous coincidence: option (4) was typically found in association with software under the old 4-clause BSD license containing the "required attribution" clause.<br><br>It made for long and highly repetitive READMEs.<br><br>People who do not do either (4) or (5) tend to do both (2) + (3).<br>People who write good READMEs probably include the information as per (1).<br><br>Regards,<br><span class=hoenzb><span style='color:#888888'>--</span></span><span style='color:#888888'><br><span class=hoenzb>-Chuck</span><br><br><span class=hoenzb>_______________________________________________</span><br><span class=hoenzb>License-discuss mailing list</span><br><span class=hoenzb><a href="mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org">License-discuss@opensource.org</a></span><br><span class=hoenzb><a href="http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss" target="_blank">http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss</a></span></span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>