Quoting Jasper Horn (jasperh...@gmail.com): > What do you people think about this?
Since you ask: IMO, the optimal solution to your problem is to cease obsessing over MIT License copyright notices -- which are in the short term doing no harm and over the long term will tend to do positive good (by furnishing recipients the names of legal stakeholders who, at least as of a particular (specified: see below) date, owned a copyright encumbrance). One of the recurring trends in recent years on OSI license-discuss has involved people deciding they dislike copyright notices for short permissive licences, pointing out that copyright law doesn't require them (true), and for various IMO bad reasons seeking to drop them. I recognise that said school of thought exists; I don't think it should be encouraged. And, by the way, although nothing in copyright law requires you to use the formulation 'Copyright 2020 Joe Coder' and prevents you from saying 'Created in 2020 by Joe Coder', your avoidance of the word 'copyright' has no effect on the legal reality of title arising and vesting instantaneously whenever someone puts a creative work in one of the covered categories, or an improvement to such a work, into fixed form. So, the reason you should continue to call a copyright notice a copyright notice rather than an attribution notice is that the former is _what it really is_. So, I'd really strongly suggest that you appreciate the merits of MIT Licence exactly the way it is, and not seek to create a semi-clone with unwise modifications made for unwise reasons. -- Cheers, "Why doesn't anyone invite copyeditors to parties, Rick Moen when we're such cool people out with whom to hang?" r...@linuxmafia.com -- @laureneoneal (Lauren O'Neal) McQ! (4x80) _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list Licenseemail@example.com http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org