The MIT License, Line by Line
These licenses have little flaws upon closer examination. One day I was reading the BSD license closely, in the context of its use in the TXR project, and was astonished to find that it was buggy and required tweaking to make it more internally consistent and true to its intent. I added a METALICENSE document where the changes are detailed:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.kylheku.com&#x2F;cgit&#x2F;txr&#x2F;tree&#x2F;METALICENSE" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.kylheku.com&#x2F;cgit&#x2F;txr&#x2F;tree&#x2F;METALICENSE</a><p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.kylheku.com&#x2F;cgit&#x2F;txr&#x2F;tree&#x2F;LICENSE" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.kylheku.com&#x2F;cgit&#x2F;txr&#x2F;tree&#x2F;LICENSE</a><p>The main problem is that the original says that both the <i>use</i> and redistribution of the software are permitted provided that the &quot;following conditions are met&quot;, which is followed by two numbered conditions, 1 and 2. But the two conditions do not govern use at all; they are purely about redistribution! Rather, the intended legal situation is that use of the software means that the user agrees to the liability and warranty disclaimer (which is not a condition). But the BSD license neglects to say that at all; it says use is subject to the conditions (just that 1 and 2), not to the disclaimer.