1

This is the link: https://gist.github.com/jgarber/2302238

I am new to github and web development.So please bear with my questions. I would like to use the responsive video code on the link mentioned above, for a commercial website I am building.

I see that the code is posted under the 'public' section but there is a copyright attached as well.

And, the file name is MIT-LICENSE.txt. Does this have any connection with the MIT-License?

Two questions:

a) Can I use this code by giving an attribution?

b) And, if I can, under which license can I use the code and what sort of attribution is required?

Joachim Sauer
  • 10,956
  • 3
  • 52
  • 45
Silk Spring
  • 11
  • 1

2 Answers2

1

What you need to do is to read over the license itself to understand more.

In order to help you though, here is a short excerpt from Wikipedia:

"The MIT License is a free software license originating at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). It is a permissive free software license, meaning that it permits reuse within proprietary software provided all copies of the licensed software include a copy of the MIT License terms. Such proprietary software retains its proprietary nature even though it incorporates software under the MIT License. The license is also GPL-compatible, meaning that the GPL permits combination and redistribution with software that uses the MIT License."

Here is the Wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License

and the MIT license page link:

http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

Based on your questions, it looks like you can use the software in your own proprietary software, but you need to provide the MIT license too (what the excerpt says).

Joe
  • 608
  • 3
  • 9
0

The file does say MIT license, but that file does not contain an MIT License. According to the contents of that file, it's just copyrighted.

But then they have posted it on Github ... Personally, I'd suggest getting in touch with the author and asking them directly.

James
  • 1,825
  • 14
  • 15
  • According to what I heard, you are not required to include the licence in every file header, as long as the licence is clearly stated otherwise. – Alexander Torstling Jan 25 '14 at 11:32
  • @AlexanderTorstling I'm pretty sure that's true (But IANAL), but I don't know why your saying that. What bearing does that have in this case? In this case the license is not clearly stated. It says "Copyright (c) 2011 ZURB" but nothing about what the license actually is. – James Jan 26 '14 at 22:40
  • Sorry I thought that you meant that the licence file was clear but that the licence wasn't included in the source file. My bad. – Alexander Torstling Jan 27 '14 at 14:44