Post
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.
@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
@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."
@Andres4NY is an STL model software tho ?
@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.
@quixoticgeek IMO no as STL is not code. It is an output from running openscad code, and MIT does not apply to output
