Permalink
7 comments
on commit
sign in to comment.
Browse files
LICENSE-MIT: Remove inaccurate (misattributed) copyright notice
LICENSE-MIT contains the line "Copyright (c) 2015 The Rust Project Developers", which implies that an entity called "The Rust Project Developers" holds copyrights in Rust. Rust contributors retain their copyrights, and do not assign them to anyone by contributing. Remove the inaccurate notice.
- Loading branch information
1 parent
d02fb3b
commit 2a8807e889a43c6b89eb6f2736907afa87ae592f
This comment has been minimized.
The text still says "above copyright notice" referring to a non-existent notice. Should this also be removed?
This comment has been minimized.
Editing the text of the license itself would be a Bad Idea. I don't think this is an issue.
This comment has been minimized.
But is it legally coherent now when the text refers to a non-existent entity? I'm trying to use some code form rustlang in my own crate, and I'm not sure if referring to the missing copyright notices in my own reproduction of the text will perpetuate this anomaly further or not.
This comment has been minimized.
Intent matters, and people will interpret "the above copyright notice and this permission notice" as "preserve this whole file verbatim".
This comment has been minimized.
I understand what you mean, but I'm presuming legal language needs to be semantically correct in order to be binding. So the question is, does this small kink render the whole license legally unenforceable and, because of that, completely useless. Maybe a lawyer needs to be consulted about this.
Please see this discussion also: https://users.rust-lang.org/t/is-it-okay-to-copy-paste-code-from-rustlang/16576
This comment has been minimized.
I'm not a lawyer nor am I offering legal advice. However, I do work with FOSS licenses and their interpretation/compatibility/etc professionally. And I would accept this myself without even the slightest hiccup.
As a general rule, things like that don't render whole licenses unenforceable or useless, they're just interpreted in the way that makes the most sense.
This comment has been minimized.
Okay. Makes sense Josh. If you have experience with this stuff and it doesn't cause problems in practice, then it's fine. I'll go ahead and comply with this license as it is in my own crate (see linked discussion). Thanks :)