This line form the text of the license suggests we should really be bundling the full license text with our code, not just stating "this code is MIT" on the STH project page:
"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." Because of this, I've started adding #catalogLicense methods to STH Configs I manage that return the entire MIT license text with a copyright statement. I think everyone should do the same. > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 at 11:08 AM > From: "Sven Van Caekenberghe" <[email protected]> > To: "Pharo Development List" <[email protected]> > Subject: [Pharo-dev] Question about attribution under the MIT License > > 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 > > >
