MIT

The short, permissive software licence named beside the writing's one: use the code for anything, keep its notice with it, and nothing further is asked.

Software is licensed differently from prose here, and the difference is deliberate. Writing travels under share-alike, so that improvements to the commons return to the commons. Code travels under MIT, which asks only that the notice go along with it. Anyone may use it, change it, fold it into something proprietary, and owe nothing back.

That looks like a weaker commitment and is a considered one. Code is infrastructure: it gets embedded in other people's systems, and a share-alike obligation there can quietly prevent the very adoption the work exists to enable. A tool that nobody can put in their stack has not served the Goal by being principled. The reciprocity that share-alike enforces for the writing is left, for code, to the practice of the houses rather than to the licence.

Two things keep that from being naive. The purpose and asset locks live in the body's legal form, not in its software licence, so what protects the work from capture does not depend on the code's terms. And what a licence reaches is the wording and the shape of a thing — never the ideas inside it — so the knowledge remains a commons whichever licence the artefact carries.

Where something executable belongs to this body and its licence has not been stated, MIT is the proposal and it is not yet settled.

Also called: the MIT licence Stands on: License · Knowledge as commons Opens onto: CC BY-SA 4.0 · Attribution · Provenance · Interoperability In play: Room · beyond Sources: the Player+ Modules' Lexicon and Entering the Field, line 2 of the six (draft) · the seed's lineage note, where MIT for executables is recorded as a proposal, not yet settled (Fable synthesis, unreviewed) · lionsberg.wiki: The Little Book of the Great Game Open: stated for the modules and proposed for the seed's own tooling; no canon page carries it, and no ruling has confirmed it.