I checked the wiki page you kind of linked, and the third sentence is:
Unlike copyleft software licenses, the MIT License also permits reuse within proprietary software, provided that all copies of the software or its substantial portions include a copy of the terms of the MIT License and also a copyright notice.
No, I don’t. I don’t know the strict definition of copyleft, so I went to the source you indicated to get a better understanding. And the phrase I found there:
Unlike copyleft software licenses, the MIT License . . .
certainly indicates that the MIT License is not copyleft.
The Wikipedia link you provide here for copyleft does not say that permissive licenses are a subset of copyleft licenses, but rather contrasts the two categories. For example, you can scroll down to the table at “Types and relation to other licenses,” where you can see MIT is not in the green Copyleft column.
deleted by creator
I checked the wiki page you kind of linked, and the third sentence is:
deleted by creator
No, I don’t. I don’t know the strict definition of copyleft, so I went to the source you indicated to get a better understanding. And the phrase I found there:
certainly indicates that the MIT License is not copyleft.
deleted by creator
The Wikipedia link you provide here for copyleft does not say that permissive licenses are a subset of copyleft licenses, but rather contrasts the two categories. For example, you can scroll down to the table at “Types and relation to other licenses,” where you can see MIT is not in the green Copyleft column.
If you check Wikipedia’s Copyleft software licenses category, you’ll see MIT is absent.
The Wikipedia link you provide for permissive states:
deleted by creator