While true practically, it's legally and technically not the case. If a project uses MIT, you must include their license in your project until all content under that license is removed from your project. A judge might say that one or two lines is not "substantial portions" or rule that something is not copyrightable due to being the only way to do something, but that's about all the legal protection you have. One person's biased opinion of what two words mean some time in the future.
The license in this project is fully permissive by the way; it's not public domain technically since that's known to be a near impossible thing to do, but you could even completely remove the license from the project or claim you created it and you have the legally assured right to do that. Unlicense to me seems like too much surface area.
Yes, I understand these legally and technically cases, but I don’t understand people who litter their heads with this, instead of concentrating on the main goal - developing the game. I don't see nothing terrible in MIT.
Well, when there is a tiny tiny chance that the author, someone claiming to be the author, or their heirs might, maybe, some day in the future be able to take your project down and sue for damages, that's not a thing you want over you, hence why I'm such a license puritan :3
I don’t understand why I should hide this author. It’s not at all difficult for me, as a thank, to indicate his name and link to his repo “in the credits” in some readme file with a list of MIT projects included in my product. What is the problem?
Because claiming in the license file that my 36kloc game was created by you because you wrote the line minetest.register_alias("mapgen_stone", "mymod:stone") is ridiculous.
Most people don't know how to respect licenses. For void game you would need to copy the license file into both mod folders and then completely delete the readme and game.conf and recreate them without referencing the original. Who does that?
The alternative is to respect the license perfectly, and then you get the above case of inappropriate attribution.
Nobody actually cares about license if it's MIT, including original game developers.
Yep. They don't. But someone might decide to screw you over and blackmail you because you absolutely objectively did break the terms of the license and probably documented yourself doing it (i.e. git).
Yes, I understand these legally and technically cases, but I don’t understand people who litter their heads with this, instead of concentrating on the main goal - developing the game. I don't see nothing terrible in MIT.
Yes. Licenses are literal and legally binding. MIT is fine. People worry about this (rarely) because if you ignore the license, then you are objectively breaking the law and most people would prefer not to. I would say that someone is more likely to worry about the fact that they have documented themselves breaking the law than they are to worry about having not broken the law at all.
Nobody actually cares about license if it's MIT, including original game developers.
I think, in this case, your license should be unlicense or something like that.
While true practically, it's legally and technically not the case. If a project uses MIT, you must include their license in your project until all content under that license is removed from your project. A judge might say that one or two lines is not "substantial portions" or rule that something is not copyrightable due to being the only way to do something, but that's about all the legal protection you have. One person's biased opinion of what two words mean some time in the future.
The license in this project is fully permissive by the way; it's not public domain technically since that's known to be a near impossible thing to do, but you could even completely remove the license from the project or claim you created it and you have the legally assured right to do that. Unlicense to me seems like too much surface area.
Yes, I understand these legally and technically cases, but I don’t understand people who litter their heads with this, instead of concentrating on the main goal - developing the game. I don't see nothing terrible in MIT.
Well, when there is a tiny tiny chance that the author, someone claiming to be the author, or their heirs might, maybe, some day in the future be able to take your project down and sue for damages, that's not a thing you want over you, hence why I'm such a license puritan :3
I don’t understand why I should hide this author. It’s not at all difficult for me, as a thank, to indicate his name and link to his repo “in the credits” in some readme file with a list of MIT projects included in my product. What is the problem?
Because claiming in the license file that my 36kloc game was created by you because you wrote the line
minetest.register_alias("mapgen_stone", "mymod:stone")is ridiculous.Most people don't know how to respect licenses. For void game you would need to copy the license file into both mod folders and then completely delete the readme and game.conf and recreate them without referencing the original. Who does that? The alternative is to respect the license perfectly, and then you get the above case of inappropriate attribution.
Yep. They don't. But someone might decide to screw you over and blackmail you because you absolutely objectively did break the terms of the license and probably documented yourself doing it (i.e. git).
Yes. Licenses are literal and legally binding. MIT is fine. People worry about this (rarely) because if you ignore the license, then you are objectively breaking the law and most people would prefer not to. I would say that someone is more likely to worry about the fact that they have documented themselves breaking the law than they are to worry about having not broken the law at all.