The MIT license (with personal exceptions)

Re:The MIT license (with personal exceptions) by newscracker on Tuesday August 28, 2018 @09:11PM (#17864413)

Seems like this would be fine if software is created by contractors or third party vendors for these companies? If that’s the case, then the impact would be lesser.

The “abusive treatment of workers” clause, if applied thoroughly, should cover every single large electronic device/appliance manufacturing company in the world that gets things made in China (using China here as an example, not that worker abuse doesn’t happen elsewhere) — like Samsung, LG, HP, Lenovo, Sony, and many, many more.

Also, this license could have a larger impact if it’s adopted by many other prominent and popular pieces of open source software.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The MIT license (with personal exceptions) by notacoward on Tuesday August 28, 2018 @09:32PM (#17864581)

> Seems like this would be fine if software is created by contractors or third party vendors

I had the same thought. Seems like it would be trivial to create a "license condom"[1] in the form of a contractor who exercises the rights granted under the license as a proxy for the real user. I'd add "...or any entity acting on behalf of same" to the end of the first paragraph. Or even better, I'd get a real copyright lawyer's opinion about what phrasing to use.

[1] Don't blame me for the term. It has been around for a while, and the subterfuge to which it refers is a large part of the reason GPLv3 exists.

[ Parent | on HN ]