Not sure if this is the proper forum for this – but I can think of none better!
It is generally accepted that ‘the software’ in the MIT license refers to ‘the source code’, but unfortunately not generally enough. Also, for interpreted languages (such as Javascript) ‘substantial portions of the Software’ are technically copied to the client’s machine, so the only way to maintain compliance is to put the license in the Javascript.
I’m not aware of anyone actually doing this; the license is just put in the repo.
Anyway, to remove ambiguity, I suggest changing the following in the MIT license.
- Change
this software and associated documentation files (the "Software")'
to
this source code and associated documentation files (the "Software")
- Add the following definition of source code.
‘
'Source code' is defined as a modifiable set of instructions that can be easily understood by a developer, and has some or all of the following properties:
1. Comments to explain the functionality.
2. Whitespace to help readability.
3. Variable and function names contain descriptive nouns and verbs.
From the above definition, any source code that has undergone obfuscation, minification, compilation, encryption, or other significant transformation
can no longer considered source code.
Resulting in – https://github.com/JohnJScott/Eternal/blob/master/LICENSE
Does this fix it? Suggestions/fixes/improvements? I’d argue this is the intent of the MIT license anyway.
Cheers
John