showell · August 26, 2012 17:59 · caseyjmorris · Oct 31, 2020
diff --git a/mit_license.html b/mit_license.html
 Paul Miller asked on Twitter: "Why use MIT license instead of public domain? The only difference is copyright notice inclusion requirement. Is it really needed?"  I only know Paul from a few online interactions.  His profile says that he is from the Ukraine.  I am from the U.S.

 I mostly agree with the spirit of Paul's question.  The license doesn't really grant you many rights that aren't already covered by most modern democracies, whether it's written law or legal precedent.  It's only a minor nuisance to include copyright notices from a purely pragmatic standpoint, but it's irksome nonetheless.  When I include the MIT license with software that I wrote, I am first annoyed that the lawyers won.  More importantly, I feel that including the license reframes the debate about free software in the wrong direction.  In my opinion, software should be naturally free, and you would only ever include licenses with non-free software.

 I would support a law that said all software was implicitly covered by the MIT license, unless some one specifically opted out of it.  Paul seems to be suggesting that the law already states that.  From what I know of U.S. law, I think he's right.

 In a follow-up tweet, Paul asks if there's ever been a trial where developers of public domain software were made liable for damages.  I can't think of one, but I'd be surprised if there hasn't been at least a couple occasions where authors of public software at least had to defend themselves in court.

 For the kind of software that I typically write, it's a pretty remote possibility that I'd ever have to worry about liability or damages, so I often omit the MIT license.  On the other hand, I don't believe there's a compelling reason to get worked up about the license itself.  The folks that wrote the MIT license are the good guys.
	Paul Miller asked on Twitter: "Why use MIT license instead of public domain? The only difference is copyright notice inclusion requirement. Is it really needed?" I only know Paul from a few online interactions. His profile says that he is from the Ukraine. I am from the U.S.

	I mostly agree with the spirit of Paul's question. The license doesn't really grant you many rights that aren't already covered by most modern democracies, whether it's written law or legal precedent. It's only a minor nuisance to include copyright notices from a purely pragmatic standpoint, but it's irksome nonetheless. When I include the MIT license with software that I wrote, I am first annoyed that the lawyers won. More importantly, I feel that including the license reframes the debate about free software in the wrong direction. In my opinion, software should be naturally free, and you would only ever include licenses with non-free software.

	I would support a law that said all software was implicitly covered by the MIT license, unless some one specifically opted out of it. Paul seems to be suggesting that the law already states that. From what I know of U.S. law, I think he's right.

	In a follow-up tweet, Paul asks if there's ever been a trial where developers of public domain software were made liable for damages. I can't think of one, but I'd be surprised if there hasn't been at least a couple occasions where authors of public software at least had to defend themselves in court.

	For the kind of software that I typically write, it's a pretty remote possibility that I'd ever have to worry about liability or damages, so I often omit the MIT license. On the other hand, I don't believe there's a compelling reason to get worked up about the license itself. The folks that wrote the MIT license are the good guys.