New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Please clarify license status #2

Closed
duskwuff opened this Issue Sep 29, 2018 · 7 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
8 participants
@duskwuff

duskwuff commented Sep 29, 2018

LICENSE.md makes the conflicting claims that the software is distributed "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED", and that it is being distributed under the MIT license. Which one of these is accurate?

Additionally, the text of the MIT license is missing several spaces (e.g, "associateddocumentation", "withoutrestriction", etc). This is unlikely to affect the validity of the license, but it does prevent Github from automatically recognizing the license.

@DrGoldfire

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@DrGoldfire

DrGoldfire Sep 29, 2018

To add more confusion, the license agreement on the Computer History Museum distribution is the far more restrictive Microsoft Research License. It's unclear why a completely different license is used here, since the files are substantially identical (the line endings have been converted to Unix for this repo) and the intended purposes of the two distributions appear to be the same.

DrGoldfire commented Sep 29, 2018

To add more confusion, the license agreement on the Computer History Museum distribution is the far more restrictive Microsoft Research License. It's unclear why a completely different license is used here, since the files are substantially identical (the line endings have been converted to Unix for this repo) and the intended purposes of the two distributions appear to be the same.

sundhaug92 added a commit to sundhaug92/MS-DOS that referenced this issue Sep 29, 2018

@Krutonium

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Krutonium

Krutonium Sep 29, 2018

To add more confusion, the license agreement on the Computer History Museum distribution is the far more restrictive Microsoft Research License. It's unclear why a completely different license is used here, since the files are substantially identical (the line endings have been converted to Unix for this repo) and the intended purposes of the two distributions appear to be the same.

I believe the difference is a couple years - Microsoft is open sourcing many more things than they used to - Especially since that version was released.

Krutonium commented Sep 29, 2018

To add more confusion, the license agreement on the Computer History Museum distribution is the far more restrictive Microsoft Research License. It's unclear why a completely different license is used here, since the files are substantially identical (the line endings have been converted to Unix for this repo) and the intended purposes of the two distributions appear to be the same.

I believe the difference is a couple years - Microsoft is open sourcing many more things than they used to - Especially since that version was released.

@iajrz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@iajrz

iajrz Sep 29, 2018

Different license for identical content on different occasions is not an issue.

Unless specifically prohibited by the earlier license, the museum can download this repo (ie: acquire the software with the present license) and use "this release" with the terms of the license as granted in this release.

It's the same situation with dual licensed software everywhere.

iajrz commented Sep 29, 2018

Different license for identical content on different occasions is not an issue.

Unless specifically prohibited by the earlier license, the museum can download this repo (ie: acquire the software with the present license) and use "this release" with the terms of the license as granted in this release.

It's the same situation with dual licensed software everywhere.

@Juul

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Juul

Juul Sep 29, 2018

LICENSE.md makes the conflicting claims that the software is distributed "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED", and that it is being distributed under the MIT license. Which one of these is accurate?

"All rights reserved" is a holdover that hasn't had any legal significance since 2000 so can be safely ignored. The only remaining issue here is the missing spaces.

Edit: To clarify, "All rights reserved" used to be required in order to even get copyright in the first place so even back when it had meaning it still wouldn't have interfered with the MIT license. Indeed it would have been required for the MIT license to have any effect.

Juul commented Sep 29, 2018

LICENSE.md makes the conflicting claims that the software is distributed "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED", and that it is being distributed under the MIT license. Which one of these is accurate?

"All rights reserved" is a holdover that hasn't had any legal significance since 2000 so can be safely ignored. The only remaining issue here is the missing spaces.

Edit: To clarify, "All rights reserved" used to be required in order to even get copyright in the first place so even back when it had meaning it still wouldn't have interfered with the MIT license. Indeed it would have been required for the MIT license to have any effect.

@ysc3839

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment

ysc3839 commented Sep 30, 2018

@sundhaug92

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sundhaug92

sundhaug92 Oct 1, 2018

@DrGoldfire This source is licensed under MIT
@bitcrazed @duskwuff I think this issue has been fixed now

sundhaug92 commented Oct 1, 2018

@DrGoldfire This source is licensed under MIT
@bitcrazed @duskwuff I think this issue has been fixed now

@bitcrazed

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bitcrazed

bitcrazed Oct 1, 2018

Contributor

We thoroughly discussed and debated licensing options before re-open-sourcing MS-DOS here on GitHub.

Since originally sharing the source via the Computer History Museum, back in 2014, Microsoft's stance on open-sourcing projects has relaxed somewhat, resulting in our relaxing the license for the source to MS-DOS to MIT.

I am reaching out to the Computer History Museum and will discuss options with them.

Closing this issue as no further action required.

Contributor

bitcrazed commented Oct 1, 2018

We thoroughly discussed and debated licensing options before re-open-sourcing MS-DOS here on GitHub.

Since originally sharing the source via the Computer History Museum, back in 2014, Microsoft's stance on open-sourcing projects has relaxed somewhat, resulting in our relaxing the license for the source to MS-DOS to MIT.

I am reaching out to the Computer History Museum and will discuss options with them.

Closing this issue as no further action required.

@bitcrazed bitcrazed closed this Oct 1, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment