[License-discuss] License licenses

[Smith, McCoy]

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana
>>Sent: Friday, May 31, 2019 11:08 AM
>>To: masson at opensource.org; license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License licenses

>>For example, for the MIT license:

>>(1) No submitter -- the MIT license was grandfathered in by the original OSI board
>>(2) No nominal copyright owner
>>(3) Despite its name, MIT does not appear to have authored the MIT license, based on the historical research I've done -- somewhat important because in later times I believe the MIT tech transfer office itself assumed -- based on the name popularized by the OSI itself -- that it had authored the MIT license, and also more recently some of the members of the "open source licenses can be copyright only" camp wish to argue that the MIT license should be read as a "copyright only" license because the present-day MIT tech transfer office supposedly takes that view. MIT is not the license steward of the MIT license -- there is no license steward -- which is separate from but closely related to the authorship and copyright ownership issue.

Here's some MIT license archeology:  https://opensource.com/article/19/4/history-mit-license

Be interesting to see one on BSD too, although I didn't see a similar one using some quick web inquiries.