

Just saying something is (GPL/MIT/Apache/…) doesn’t make it so - niggler
http://blog.nig.gl/post/48848761220/just-saying-something-is-gpl-mit-apache-doesnt

======
lmm
So other people have to do a bit of work (copypasting the license into the
source) to exercise the permission you've granted to them (because that's what
these licenses are). That doesn't invalidate your giving of said permission.

~~~
niggler
That's not the problem here. The _original release_ must include the license,
otherwise the code is not following the terms of the license (in the case of
MIT). And as for GPL and Apache, a link to the license must be furnished.

This isn't about subsequent redistribution (and if it were, I'd agree with
your skepticism). The primary distribution must also follow the terms.

You can't cherrypick which parts of the license you wish to follow.

~~~
lmm
>That's not the problem here. The original release must include the license,
otherwise the code is not following the terms of the license (in the case of
MIT). And as for GPL and Apache, a link to the license must be furnished.

Why's that a problem? If you own the copyright, you have the right to
distribute your code, and you have the right to grant other people permission
to redistribute your code under the MIT license or any other license, whether
or not you yourself are complying with the terms of said license.

------
jcr
You might also want to mention the ISC license.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license>

~~~
niggler
Updated to reflect that.

Relevant part:

    
    
        Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this 
        software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby
        granted, *provided that the above copyright notice and
        this permission notice appear in all copies.*

------
theorique
Does the reference to the license not count as a license, much as a pointer in
C refers you to the "actual data"?

~~~
niggler
A reference to a license is acceptable if and only if the license being
referenced recognizes them. Some licenses (like GPL) do recognize certain
types of references while others (like MIT) do not.

If you want a C analogy, saying "LICENSE: GPL" or "LICENSE: MIT" is like
dealing with a void *.

