Re:Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software
by ghaff on Saturday June 13, 2015 @03:09PM
(#9712207)
Giving credit as a matter of courtesy is often good behavior. However, neither the modern three-clause BSD license nor MIT require it.
Re:Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software
by glass- on Saturday June 13, 2015 @04:00PM
(#9712409)
> Giving credit as a matter of courtesy is often good behavior. However, neither the modern three-clause BSD license nor MIT require it.
Read the very first clause of the 3-clause BSD license, and the first condition of the MIT License.
You'll find that they both require you to retain the "above copyright notice" which usually includes a line such as "Copyright (c) <year> <name>".
Re:Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software
by ghaff on Sunday June 14, 2015 @10:26AM
(#9715019)
That's why I specifically wrote "credit" rather than copyright notice. If you distribute modified binaries without code (as you can do with BSD/MIT), there's no copyright notice on code to see.
Re:Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software
by danieldk on Sunday June 14, 2015 @01:41PM
(#9715696)
Then read the second term:
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
It's simple to understand. If it is in the public domain, people can just strip your name from your work. I have always seen the BSD, MIT, and comparable licenses as 'this is effectively in the public domain, but please keep my name on what I wrote, and don't sue me if it causes damage'.