yes you are correct, keeping the copyright list in is the requirement pretty much of any license. to make sure that is not a transfer of copyright but rather what it really is, a license , to use the code as you wish.
Frankly as a lawyere I dont care, this is open source, code is modified all the time. how you make sure your copyright is intact ? you cant. Its not clear cut case, and the moment someone modifies your code he creates his own copyright on the code he modified. And then even if you want to go to the court over this the burden of proof will be on you to prove how much copyright you have over the code and exactly which parts. Obviously if the code is not modified at all , at least the part you claiming copyright for , and you can prove it that is yours beyond reasonable doubt then you are fine, though you will still have to go to the court to defend and suffer all the expenses and pain that equates. But if the code is modified , you fight a lost cause , because we have mix of copyrights in that case and all hell brakes loose. The only way to guaranty copyright is to keep the source closed and under a strict license which what the vast majority of companies are doing and should be doing. Especially for code they deeply care to keep a copyright of. Open source is a copyright minefield and this is why its not very viable financially and companies dont like it, when copyright itself is their lifehood. On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 6:09 PM Sven Van Caekenberghe <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I have a been wondering recently about attribution under the MIT License. > > Code in Pharo and code contributed to Pharo is and should be licensed > under the MIT License. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License > > Contributors sign an extra agreement. > > http://files.pharo.org/media/PharoSoftwareDistributionAgreement.pdf > > Here, contributors give a license so Pharo can include their code. > > As I read the MIT license the original author keeps the copyright and > about the only requirement is that that copyright shall be included when > the code is used. The extra agreement does not transfer copyright. > > So, all authors should be mentioned in the general Pharo MIT license. > > The reason I was thinking about this is that many people on the list seems > to be under the impression that MIT licensed code means that you can freely > copy it, like most recently in the discussions about Dophin Smalltalk. I > think copying MIT licensed code requires proper attribution. > > If people copy (my, someone else's) code from Pharo to somewhere else, I > want them to at least acknowledge that fact, preferably include a general > Pharo (contributors) copyright, but ideally (my, their) copyright. > > But that would also mean that Pharo has to do the same. I think we should > list and update the official contributor list, including the historical > list of original authors going back. > > Am I right or wrong ? > > How do other people feel about this ? > > Sven > > >
