Is this just MIT?

[Miro Hrončok]

Hi,

is this just MIT [1]?

Or the last paragraph makes it different?

[1] https://github.com/memononen/libtess2/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

Thanks,

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

This is SGI Free Software License B version 2.0 which is described on
GNU.org in a following way [1]:

The SGI Free Software License B version 2.0 is a free software
     license.  It is essentially identical to the X11 License [2], with
     an optional alternative way of providing license notices.

and marked with a green line as compatible with GNU GPL.

Is it ‘just MIT’ or not, depends on what you call ‘just MIT’. There are
at least two popular MIT licenses: Expat [3] and X11 [4]; if both are
‘just MIT’ to you, then SGI FSL-B 2.0 is too. Its last paragraph is a
non-endorsement clause identical to that of the latter one. It’s the
second paragraph that makes SGI FSL-B 2.0 different from either Expat
and X11; to be precise it makes it slightly more permissive, allowing
hyperlinking to license (à la Creative Commons Attribution) instead of
providing its full text. (However, I have no idea, who might take
advantage from this permission – the full legal text is just 25 lines
long.)

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#SGIFreeB
[2]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#X11License
[3]: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat
[4]: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:X11

On 22/02/15 17:19, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is this just MIT [1]?
>
> Or the last paragraph makes it different?
>
> [1] https://github.com/memononen/libtess2/blob/master/LICENSE.txt
>
> Thanks,

[Miro Hrončok]

On 25.2.2015 01:42, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
> This is SGI Free Software License B version 2.0 which is described on
> GNU.org in a following way [1]:
> The SGI Free Software License B version 2.0 is a free software
> license.  It is essentially identical to the X11 License [2], with
> an optional alternative way of providing license notices.
>
> and marked with a green line as compatible with GNU GPL.
>
> Is it ‘just MIT’ or not, depends on what you call ‘just MIT’. There are
> at least two popular MIT licenses: Expat [3] and X11 [4]; if both are
> ‘just MIT’ to you, then SGI FSL-B 2.0 is too. Its last paragraph is a
> non-endorsement clause identical to that of the latter one. It’s the
> second paragraph that makes SGI FSL-B 2.0 different from either Expat
> and X11; to be precise it makes it slightly more permissive, allowing
> hyperlinking to license (à la Creative Commons Attribution) instead of
> providing its full text. (However, I have no idea, who might take
> advantage from this permission – the full legal text is just 25 lines
> long.)

Thanks Dmitry,

as "just MIT" I meant if I should use "MIT" in the RPM license tag.

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

You are welcome.

Yes, according to Fedora Licensing Guidelines [1], you should use the 
same short name ‘MIT’ for either Expat license, X11 license, SGI FSL-B 
2.0 and several other similar but not identical licenses. (That would 
not be true, however, if you wanted to make Debian package, for instance).

[1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses

On 25/02/15 18:31, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 25.2.2015 01:42, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
> > This is SGI Free Software License B version 2.0 which is described on
> > GNU.org in a following way [1]:
> >  The SGI Free Software License B version 2.0 is a free software
> >  license.  It is essentially identical to the X11 License [2], with
> >  an optional alternative way of providing license notices.
> >
> > and marked with a green line as compatible with GNU GPL.
> >
> > Is it ‘just MIT’ or not, depends on what you call ‘just MIT’. There are
> > at least two popular MIT licenses: Expat [3] and X11 [4]; if both are
> > ‘just MIT’ to you, then SGI FSL-B 2.0 is too. Its last paragraph is a
> > non-endorsement clause identical to that of the latter one. It’s the
> > second paragraph that makes SGI FSL-B 2.0 different from either Expat
> > and X11; to be precise it makes it slightly more permissive, allowing
> > hyperlinking to license (à la Creative Commons Attribution) instead of
> > providing its full text. (However, I have no idea, who might take
> > advantage from this permission – the full legal text is just 25 lines
> > long.)
>
> Thanks Dmitry,
>
> as "just MIT" I meant if I should use "MIT" in the RPM license tag.