The MIT License (MIT)

5 stars based on 71 reviews

Typically the licenses listed for the project are that of the project itself, and mit license attribution binary trading of dependencies. The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. May I enquire as to what specific forms are permissable to meet the " The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or mit license attribution binary trading portions of the Software For example, does the notice need to appear within an application's user interface somewhere?

If so, does it matter where? If not, how specifically does it need to be incorporated? Embedded within any file? Only a separate file? What about a a phone app, where this would be impractical? What about a hardware product where the code is compiled into firmware and there is mit license attribution binary trading practical or desirable way of displaying the notice?

I'm a freelance graphic designer and would like to use the Flexslider widget on my site, but I need to first obtain an MIT license. How do I go about doing this? I am glad you are worried about making sure you don't steal software.

The MIT license is what you agree to when you use the software, not something you have to purchase though. So feel right ahead to use the slider, without purchasing anything. Just make sure you follow the rules stated by the MIT License above our posts. I'm referring to the following part-sentence: Does this mean that person1, referred to in the text as "any person", is mit license attribution binary trading to give access to the complete source code to person2, referred to in the text as "persons to whom the Software is furnished"?

The part about "permit persons to whom the software is furnished In other words, person A gives software to person B, and under this license, not only can person B do various stuff e. Assuming person A is the copyright holder, it would be a little bit pointless for person A to choose this license if he didn't intend to include the source code.

But the license doesn't force A to give B the source. It doesn't force B to give C the source either, even if B gets the source from A. Which makes sense, because B doesn't have to pass along any of the rights e. If you choose this license, you are allowing anybody mit license attribution binary trading take the source away and distribute only the binaries. Then why does Wikipedia state unreferenced this license is NOT copyleft? Does Wikipedia need fixing?

Is there a reliable source about this? The Mit license attribution binary trading license is only required to be retained for the work that you incorporate. Copyleft licenses are designed for authors of 'free' software, who wish to ensure that their work can ONLY be used in other 'free' software.

Such an author chooses a path where everyone contributes 'free' software, and no one can include such work in 'un-free' software. The MIT license is different. It is for authors who are willing to have their work be widely used, in both 'free' and commercial proprietary software. That is, it is fine with such an author if someone else makes use of their work, but feels that they are not in a position to offer such freedom.

These are two philosophically different paths for sharing work with the broader mit license attribution binary trading. Each path has its benefits. For example, I make my living developing custom software for clients. I or my clients have a business model that is not consistent with CopyLeft freedom.

Copyleft refers to whether mit license attribution binary trading license perpetuates to derivatives based on the licensed work. MIT does not have this requirement. If I obtain code under the MIT license, then make changes to it. Can I sub-license it under my own terms? Or do I have to still include their original MIT license with my software.

Basically I'm creating software that contains MIT licensed code, but I want to sell it with my own sub-license for the end users so they can't redistribute it for free. I'd like to use some MIT-licensed xml-parsing code in my iPhone game. This seems to require that I package the Mit license attribution binary trading license with the application. However, my iPhone app does not include extensive documentation and mit license attribution binary trading demographic will not want legal notices shoved in their faces.

My boss is afraid of using this code because our company is very small and doesn't have the money for any type of legal battle. What is the best way to comply with the MIT license in an iPhone app without compromising user experience? Is it sufficient to refer to the license via URL? I want to modify and use some code that only refers to the license via:. Is it OK to integrate code within a larger code-base e. I am not a lawyer, but I think it's good enough. A lot of JavaScript out there does not put the entire licence blurb there to save space.

Pedantics like the Debian project also need a "Copyright by Foo Bar, " statement. Regarding the wrapper - it should be OK, but make sure you also reproduce the copyright blurb and a link to the one who originated it. When Chuck Norris uses Gentoo, "emerge kde" finishes in under a minute.

A computer cannot afford to keep Chuck waiting for too long. If we are making a closed source application, selling this application for profit, include this license in the open source license file, are we breaking any laws? You are allowed to link to such code from your application or even change the licence of derivative works see the permission to "sub-license". What you may need to do is give attribution:. Random Hacker, " somewhere.

But it would be hard to avoid giving attribution in practically all copyrighted open source code out there. I downloaded a software under this License. Upon the original software I have made several changes. I would like to release our it with those changes. What kind of licensing can it go with? Is it possible to keep the changes under my name? If i want distribute open source system CMS on my site http: Yes, of course you can use this license.

As stated the law allows abuses of software. Require a clause that no malicious uses may be entered into with said program conditional of any use. The problem with a clause like that is: What happens if that entity ceases to make those decisions? GitHub Downloads Maven Plugin. Overview Typically the licenses listed for the project are that of the project itself, and not of dependencies.

Login or register to post comments. Comments Comment viewing options Flat list - collapsed Flat list - expanded Threaded list - collapsed Threaded list - expanded. Date - newest first Date - oldest first. Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I want to modify and use some code that only refers to the license via: Thank you for your time. What you may need to do is give attribution: Comment viewing options Flat list - collapsed Flat list - expanded Threaded list - collapsed Threaded list - expanded.

Other choices for analyzing and trading in binary options

  • Binare optionen mit einem 60 euro handeln

    Trade brokers international ltd

  • What is a binary options managed account

    Binare optionen der quellensteuer

Nem stock options dubai

  • Td ameritrade brokerage overnight address for transfer

    Corredores de opciones semanales

  • Ma binary option trading in india

    Beginner binary options systems that work

  • Binare optionen strategien 1 minute bis 1 eur

    Best binary options trading robot

Types and classifications of binary options account

29 comments Wells fargo advisors asset management fees

Openastextstream binary trading

Much open source licensed software even permissive licenses like the MIT license and the Apache license require a copyright notice to be distributed with derivative works although the Apache licences definition of derivative doesn't include where linked by name. In the case of mobile apps you should at least be including the license text in the bundle and to comply with the spirit of the license I think that you should be exposing it to the end user through the interface.

If your app uses PLCrashreporter, Crashlytics, HockeyApp or uses any open source licenses and you haven't carefully thought about presenting those licenses to the user you should read the long version. I developed the Fast Lists app for the iPhone and iPad. It is a fairly simple app focussed on use for check lists, shopping, packing, emergency services divers checklists or really anything that you can think of.

However when Facebook bought Parse I felt that I needed to move away from their services [I may post separately]. I can live without the anonymous logging and promocodes temporarily but I didn't want to be without crash logging as Apple only seems to provide reports when crashes reach a certain frequency that Fast Lists was not reaching.

However none of these take explicit steps to bring to your attention your obligations as a downstream user. The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

So if a substantial portion e. For this as I read it including in the bundle with no user accessibility may be legal. This is longer and more detailed and makes clear than simply linking does constitute the creation of a derivative work. However by including the library in your application you not only link to it but distribute the library.

Clause 4 of the license is about Redistribution and part 4 says:. If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: You may add Your own attribution notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed as modifying the License.

You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and. The closest of the commercial offers to making it clear was probably Crashlytics whose legal page has a link to " Open source licenses " that isn't buried in the text of a long legal document or in a sub-folder of a download.

It doesn't actually seem to be referenced from the legal document so it isn't completley apparent that it needs to be followed by downstream users. In fact when I queried Crashlytics about the open source license and the end user requirements and whether I needed to add a licenses section to my app I'm lazy and I didn't want to spend the time including additional UI on iPhone and iPad I got this response which I didn't find reassuring about the correctness of the approach although in practice it is probably valid:.

None of our customers, to my knowledge, has distributed our license with their app and we've seen no cause for alarm so far.

That said, it might make sense for you to do so out of an abundance of caution if you are concerned. Now I believe that following this advice would technically lead you to breaching at least two licenses.

I think as you include the Apache licensed Proto-bufs in your bundle you are certainly distributing even if your app is not a derivative work. I'm going to talk about PLCrashReporter because that is the specific software where I hit this issue but I really don't want to pick on them or be making a specific point about them. Its really about mobile targeted open source. I really appreciate the PLCrashReporter software that has been provided by the Plausible Labs and they have done nothing wrong but they could help the situation.

Now we should all read every word of the legal documents we receive, read and understand the details of the licenses for all software we include in our apps so we all share some blame. For now we need to not be lazy and actually add the UI to our apps to present these licenses or write all the code ourselves.

I think that the source of the problem is that the original upstream projects set license terms without thinking about them. I have the feeling that the PLCrashReporter developers don't really expect the license terms to be included with app store apps.

They just used the MIT license because it is standard and permissive. I think that they should set out their expectations and guidance about how the license should be presented or bundled or possibly even better add additional terms allowing the license to be excluded from mobile apps and possibly linked to from the developer's site or the app description.

Now in many cases not thinking about how the documentation would be handled in mobile apps is completely understandable but they are the main target for some libraries such as this so it really should be considered. The services and derived libraries should include in their user instructions the requirement to add the license to the end user's software bundle. They could even offer a convienience ViewController and Xib to present it and other licenses if the user needs to show them too.

I think this is the place where the greatest responsibility lies. These services largely have paying customers whose work is being put into some legal risk, they have a responsibility to their customers to explain what is necessary to comply with the upstream license and it should be in the main how to get started documentation not tucked away in the legal agreement.

PLCrashReporter not really modifed from the original. You could probably use the minimal version and then add other parts in if you wanted to.