
RtMidi license: MIT License w/ request to send modifications to developer - em3rgent0rdr
https://github.com/thestk/rtmidi#legal-and-ethical
======
em3rgent0rdr
RtMidi: realtime MIDI i/o C++ classes Copyright (c) 2003-2016 Gary P. Scavone

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is asked to
send the modifications to the original developer so that they can be
incorporated into the canonical version. This is, however, not a binding
provision of this license.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
The non-binding provision "to send the modifications to the original developer
so that they can be incorporated into the canonical version" sounds like a
neat compromise between copyleft and just plain opensource. It avoids the
hesitancy which commercial developers might have about using strong copy-left.

------
mindcrime
I'm kinda iffy on this. I mean, I get the idea behind it and I appreciate the
spirit of it. But now we have yet one more home-grown license that probably
hasn't been vetted by anybody, has unknown legal ramifications, and basically
just adds to the noise and confusion around OSS licensing.

Sure, as a layman, I can read this and assume that it _probably_ means what I
think it means. But if I wanted to incorporate this code into another project,
would I really be willing to be the farm on that?

License proliferation[1] is a real issue and I think we should all take it
into consideration. Anyway, I hope the author at least submits this to OSI[2]
and - hopefully - gets it certified as an OSI approved OSS license.

[1]: [https://opensource.org/proliferation-
report](https://opensource.org/proliferation-report)

[2]: [https://opensource.org/approval](https://opensource.org/approval)

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
good idea about having the author submit this to OSI...I guess I'll make an
issue report on that github page.

But this license shouldn't have any concerns about legal ramifications since
it explicitly states that the request is non-binding. So as far as the law is
concern, this is MIT license.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
Ok, I submitted:
[https://github.com/thestk/rtmidi/issues/110](https://github.com/thestk/rtmidi/issues/110)

