[License-discuss] MIT-Clone: Copyright notice

Jasper Horn jasperhorn at gmail.com
Thu Feb 13 13:27:19 UTC 2020

Hello all,

I've always liked the MIT license. There is one thing that bothers me about
it, though: the copyright notice. Often, the copyright notice refers to
author of some initial files, while the copyright is  actually spread over
many contributors. Yet, this cannot be fixed because the license prohibits

What this makes me want to do is take the MIT license and take all mentions
of "copyright notice" out of the text and replace them with "attribution
notice". Then, I'll put "Created by me" above it instead of "Copyright me".
Finally, I can't really call it the MIT license anymore, so I give it a new

(In fact, it's exactly what I have done in the past, but I'm now
re-evaluating that decision.)

On the one hand, this is clearly license proliferation. On the other hand,
it suffers the drawbacks of proliferation far less because it is the same
as the MIT license for nearly all intents and purposes.

What do you people think about this?

(Yes, I do have an idea about what you'll say. However, I'd prefer not to
assume. Besides, there might be angles to this issue that I have missed.)


Jasper Horn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200213/fa5010e1/attachment.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list