Quixoticgeek

Open source license question.

If I have some openscad code I downloaded that has an MIT license. If I use that code, modifying it, and then render out an STL file from openscad. Does the stl need to be MIT licenced? I'm guessing the openscad code would need to remain MIT licensed if I was to share it.

#OpenSourceLicencing #MITLicense

Feb 24 at 4:45pmWeb
Show threadOliver BlanthornFeb 24
@quixoticgeek IMO no as STL is not code. It is an output from running openscad code, and MIT does not apply to output
Show threadHoward CohenFeb 25
@bovine3dom @quixoticgeek What about STEP files? They are an export format, but more than just a shape. They are also the recipe that formed the shape. Would the MIT license apply to STEP files?
Show threadOliver BlanthornFeb 25

@hoco I'm not totally familiar with the format but I would guess not because it's a very significant transformation. It's less clear cut though.

@quixoticgeek I just noticed you had a second question: if you take MIT licensed code and modify it, you can license your modifications with whatever license you want. The usual approach is to say code up to commit abc123 is licensed under that MIT licence and code thereafter is BSD-2 or AGPL or whatever

Show threadIngvarFeb 24

@quixoticgeek Interesting question. The STL is definitely a "derived work" of the original OpenSCAD source, but I am not exactly sure how MIT license propagates to derived works.

Would a binary from MIT-licensed source code be MIT-licensed? If so, yes, the STL would definitely be MIT-licensed. If not, I suspect the STL also would not be.

Show threadGabeFeb 25
@vatine @quixoticgeek I would so dearly love the GPL to suddenly and retroactively apply to everything that was ever compiled by GCC.
Show threadIngvarFeb 25

@gabe @quixoticgeek I don't think "the compiled result" and "the compiled result of a separate work, using the compiled result" are even close to the same level of derived work.

But, in short, I do not know if an STL generated from an MIT-licensed OpenSCAD file would itself be MIT-licensed or not. I can probably argue it both ways, and the closest analogy I can think of is "binary" and "source code".

But it sure is an interesting question, and is likely to have either a clear answer or amuse lawyers specialised in intellectual property licensing for hours, possibly weeks.

Show threadAndresFeb 24

@quixoticgeek MIT is super permissive. You're free to relicense it so long as you abide by the original terms, which is to keep the original license and copyright notice intact in the source file. A lot of times what you'll see is a proprietary or GPL'd project including MIT-licensed source verbatim (updating/fixing/enhancing code as needed), but just keeping the file w/ the MIT header there.

So to answer your question, no, nothing needs to remain MIT-licensed. But keep the source header intact

Show threadAndresFeb 24
@quixoticgeek Breaking down the relevant license terms:
"Permission is hereby granted [...] the rights to [...] copy, modify, [...] sublicense, [...] 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."
Show threadQuixoticgeekFeb 24
@Andres4NY is an STL model software tho ?
Show threadAndresFeb 24

RE: https://mastodon.social/@Susan_calvin/116127797058723980

@quixoticgeek I'd go with what Susan said in this instance.

Show threadSusan CalvinFeb 24
@Andres4NY @quixoticgeek if compilers could claim ownership of the output then the C20th would have been very different. (Old geek)
Show threadSusan CalvinFeb 24
@Andres4NY @quixoticgeek the STL is like any compiler output - if it includes significant chunks of library then the library license applies, otherwise the STL is yours.