Am Dienstag, 17. Januar 2006 06:36 schrieb Ashley Yakeley:
In article <200601162208.42179.wolfgang@jeltsch.net>,
Wolfgang Jeltsch <wolfgang@jeltsch.net> 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