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.
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.