Am Dienstag, 17. Januar 2006 06:36 schrieb Ashley Yakeley: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > Wolfgang Jeltsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > According to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php it should > > read: > > > > [...] to any person obtaining *a copy of* this work, > > > > Or is leaving out of "a copy of" intended? > > Whoops, no. I think it's safe to leave, though?
I don't know the judical terminology. Maybe, the makers of the so-called MIT license inserted "a copy of" because what you receive on your computer is strictly speaking always just a copy of the work since the actual work lies on the server, the computer of the creator or whatever. Maybe, it's safer to include "a copy of". I think this shouldn't be much of a problem since the current license and the corrected license would roughly be the same so that I cannot imagine some author complaining about a license change in the form of addition of "a copy of". What do others think? Best wishes, Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
