Source-less MIT license?

[xoft]

I just came across a piece of software that claims that it uses MIT license, but at the same time the source code is explicitly not provided ("developers only"). This got me thinking - is it even possible? The MIT license is very simple:

Copyright © <year> <copyright holders>

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see any requirement for the source code availability, so it seems it is indeed possible to release binaries under MIT while keeping the source closed. Wow.

[NiLSPACE]

After a quick google search I haven't found anyone who claims you can't have a closed source with a MIT license, so I guess it's probably true.

[DiamondToaster]

That's weird. I guess you could do what ever you want with the binaries(?) and omit the source code. Not very developer friendly.

[xoft]

Direct your anger at Reticle developers, then:
http://reticle.mc-atlantida.eu/
mail (at) mc-atlantida [dot] eu

I've already changed their entry in the wiki.vg client list: http://wiki.vg/Client_List

[worktycho]

Well, it would be legal for someone to redistribute the binary without the source so why not distribute it without the source? This is why the GPL is so complicated, avoiding loopholes like this.

[bearbin]

I believe it is allowed for them to not distribute the source code, but if you can get hold of it you're allowed to do whatever as long as you follow the license.

Of course, IANAL so you should probably look into it yourself.

[sphinxc0re]

Why are we using the Apache license again?

[bearbin]

Because that's what FakeTruth chose when he put a license on the project, if I remember right.

[sphinxc0re]

That wasn't my question. Why didn't he choose GPL or something more common? What is so special about Apache, that he did choose it?

[FakeTruth]

I knew nothing about licenses, I picked one blindly