MIT license text may be incorrect

[DaveInCaz]

I noticed that in the MIT license section of https://github.com/ElinamLLC/SharpVectors/blob/master/License.txt the first few lines are the following:

MinIoC License (https://github.com/microsoft/MinIoC)
MIT License

Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
...

But I would have thought it should read more like this:

The MIT License (MIT)
Copyright (c) 2010 - 2024, Elinam LLC
...

based on other usages of the MIT license I have seen. For example: https://github.com/JamesNK/Newtonsoft.Json

Thanks

[paulushub]

But I would have thought it should read more like this:

My understanding: Newtonsoft.Json is licensed under MIT.

MinIoC in SharpVectors is still under its own license, MIT.
It is copied verbatim (like that of Brotli), as is the practice for third-party licenses listing.

The LICENSE and README files are included here:
https://github.com/ElinamLLC/SharpVectors/blob/master/Source/SharpVectorModel/IoC/

[DaveInCaz]

@paulushub I understand now. My mistake was that I misinterpreted the intent of the License.txt file. I thought it was supplying several alternative licenses all for SharpVectors rather than first providing the SharpVectors license, and then secondly attributing other third-party components. (There are occasionally projects which do offer multiple licenses).

Thanks for the explanation, sorry for taking up your time!

[DaveInCaz]

@paulushub I just noticed there are actually two license files in the repo:

https://github.com/ElinamLLC/SharpVectors/blob/master/License.md
and
https://github.com/ElinamLLC/SharpVectors/blob/master/License.txt

Both have the BSD license for SharpVectors itself, and the second one also has the third-party attributions.

As a suggestion, it might be less confusing (for dummies like me 😁) if you removed the BSD part from the second file and use it only for third-party attributions.

Also, the BSD sections have different copyright dates.

[paulushub]

Both have the BSD license for SharpVectors itself, and the second one also has the third-party attributions.

The License.md is meant for Github users, who simply want to know the license of the code.
The License.txt is used in the Nuget packages:

SharpVectors/Source/SharpVectors.nuspec

Line 308 in a0272a4

<file src="..\License.txt" target="lib"/>

Also, the BSD sections have different copyright dates.

Thanks, I will update that. Licensing is an important issue, I do appreciate you looking into it.

[DaveInCaz]

The one meant for Nuget may actually be messing up the GitHub logic. When you view the main SharpVectors page, it shows this in the sidebar:

which if you click, shows this:

So its apparently picking up the Nuget file somehow. Maybe just based on filename?

This is partly what gave me the mistaken impression originally that you were offering multiple alternative licenses.

[paulushub]

It works well in the tab view, will look into any way to improve it.