What I want to do or know
Is the MIT Open License fundamentally different than CC licences that ...
Public Lab is an open community which collaboratively develops accessible, open source, Do-It-Yourself technologies for investigating local environmental health and justice issues.
By signing up, you agree to the Code of Conduct, which applies to all online and in-person spaces managed by the Public Lab community and non-profit.
As an open source community, we believe in open licensing of content so that other members of the community can leverage your work legally -- with attribution, of course. By joining the Public Lab site, you agree to release the content you post here under a Creative Commons Attribution Sharealike license, and the hardware designs you post under the CERN Open Hardware License 1.1 (full text). This has the added benefit that others must share their improvements in turn with you.
Is the MIT Open License fundamentally different than CC licences that do not claim to be copyrights? Is it essentially the same as Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License?
I'm working with a collaborator who is trying to get their open licences in order and one of their collaborators at MIT was interested in using the MIT license and I wanted to see if there would be any reasons for encouraging them to use a CC license before that license is applied at the end of September.
I might add some of this information to the licenses wiki to clarify just how these processes work. Thanks again!
Sorry for the inconvenience. Just testind a bug in this question.
Reply to this comment...
The MIT license is a permissive open source license, and is not copyleft -- meaning that, unlike the GPL or CC-BY-SA (sharealike), derivative works needn't follow the same license. It's not "infectious" -- to use the negative term.
In this respect it's more like CC-BY -- attribution only. Free and open source licenses can be divided into two broad categories based on whether they're copyleft or not, and there's a pretty big cultural difference between the two.
Copyleft licenses tend to make a kind of moral claim that people who benefit should "pitch in" and add to the work in an open way -- these are generally favored by the "free software" movement. Permissive licenses are hands-off, and more associated with the "open source" movement, some of whom see it as more "business friendly". A brief history (at a cultural level) can be found in this article, one of my favorites:
This is great! Thanks! I did think there was a difference but I wasn't sure what it was. thanks for pinpointing it and then situating it in longer debates. Lookin forward to reading that article!
Reply to this comment...
In a nutshell, permissive open source licenses mean someone can take what's been committed to the commons and build a closed branch off of it. This kind of license, which includes the MIT license, means someone can come along and make improvements to your open source design, and NOT share them back to the commons. This includes not sharing them back to you!
I'm guessing you're working on some hardware.
Have you read the Cern OHL?