Timeline for Relicensing an MIT licensed project under the GPL that has non code contributions from others
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 10, 2022 at 1:16 | comment | added | Scott M. Stolz | Technically, the MIT code is and always remains MIT licensed, however, once it is put into a GPL licensed work, extracting the MIT licensed part becomes problematic since even small changes would render it a derivative of the MIT licensed work, and therefore becomes GPL licensed. That is why you have to go to the MIT licensed source to make sure you get a truly free and clear MIT licensed version. | |
| Sep 12, 2021 at 5:04 | comment | added | MadHatter♦ | @Martian2020 if you want to further discuss the matter, feel free to ask a question. Please do not continue it here. | |
| Sep 12, 2021 at 3:35 | comment | added | Martian2020 | @MadHatter, interesting, looks like you encourage me to further affirm my understanding, which as far as I understood you consider not completely correct, as the answer you linked from law SE says: "under the COMBINED terms of both the BSD and the GPL licences.". As for second link, I would agree that if MIT license allowed omission of notice provided license for derived work is such and such (and GPL matched), then only GPL would be fine (again per my understanding). | |
| Sep 11, 2021 at 16:36 | comment | added | MadHatter♦ | @Martian2020 then I encourage you to read this answer on law.SE. I also recommend the approach I take in this answer: once code received under MIT is placed under the GPL tarpaulin - which MIT allows - it may not be taken out again (without much consent). You can get it from the original distributor, under the original licence, but you may not abstract it from the GPL'ed work and claim it is again under MIT-only. | |
| Sep 11, 2021 at 15:29 | comment | added | Martian2020 | @MadHatter, ok, you said what you said. I would then reiterate my (although amended) opinion: if part of it is not also MIT, AFAIK it would be a violation of MIT license - but that is again my understanding. | |
| Sep 11, 2021 at 13:35 | comment | added | MadHatter♦ | @Martian2020 I wish you'd stop paraphrasing me, and read what I'm writing. When I say it's all GPL, I mean it's all GPL. That's it. | |
| Sep 11, 2021 at 13:18 | comment | added | Martian2020 | @MadHatter, thank you. Now I get it by recalling term of something like compatibility. All is GPL and part of it is also MIT and that is OK - that is what you meant, right? | |
| Sep 11, 2021 at 6:13 | comment | added | MadHatter♦ | @Martian2020 it doesn't. A work is a thing, entire of itself; if the new work is the combination of the old MIT-licensed work and anything under GPL that's been added, this entire work must be distributed under GPL. I have said that three times now, for all that you seem very keen to have me clarify that I've not said it at all. | |
| Sep 11, 2021 at 3:04 | comment | added | Martian2020 | @madHatter, that way I agree it is clear what you meant now. I just doubted most of readers understand "a project in its entirety" means only new code. | |
| Sep 10, 2021 at 7:17 | comment | added | MadHatter♦ | @Martian2020 yes, I meant the licence governing the new work will be the GPL, as the GPL requires, and this is permitted because the MIT licence requires that its text be reproduced, but not that it also be the sole applicable copyright licence. If that's still unclear, I recommend asking a new question, instead of continuing the discussion here. | |
| Sep 9, 2021 at 13:40 | comment | added | Martian2020 | @MadHatter you write "not the same as requiring that text to be the SOLE copyright licence ", so if new work will have GPL license for new code and MIT for part - if not SOLE that I understand, but you wrote before "entirety under the GPL", so I understood you mean SOLE will be GPL...I'm still confused. | |
| Sep 9, 2021 at 12:16 | comment | added | MadHatter♦ | @Martian2020 to my mind, no. Requiring the reproduction of text is not the same as requiring that text to be the sole copyright licence applicable to the content. If it were so, then GPLv3 s4 ("provided that you ... give all recipients a copy of this License") would imply GPLv3 s5c ("You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License"), and there would be no need for the latter. | |
| Sep 6, 2021 at 4:05 | comment | added | Martian2020 | @MadHatter "entirety under the GPL" that IMHO contradicts with "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." which implies that substantial portion is still MIT. Or not? | |
| Jun 18, 2020 at 8:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot | Commonmark migration | |
| Nov 13, 2019 at 8:57 | comment | added | MadHatter♦ | @xzilla read the answer more carefully. MIT-licensed content can be used as part of a project which is licensed in its entirety under the GPL. The translation files can be reused in this way, and are therefore not an issue. | |
| Aug 20, 2019 at 13:55 | comment | added | mirabilos | This does mean, for the OP, though that it would only be a very slight deterrent, and no solution. | |
| Aug 6, 2019 at 2:03 | comment | added | xzilla | To expand on the other half of this question, in almost every case I have seen, translation files are considered part of the source for a given program. (If source is speech, speech can also be source). So in the example, you have given, you would likely also need to either get explicit permission to re-license the translation files or remove them from the project. (IANAL/IANYL) | |
| May 6, 2018 at 18:40 | vote | accept | linuxuser | ||
| Aug 6, 2017 at 2:31 | history | answered | unor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |