Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

11
  • 7
    @vartec: You're not changing the license under which you received the code. You're creating a new license between you and the new recipient, and it can have whatever terms you want. (The new recipient may get additional rights under the original license, but that has no effect on the new license.) The norm is for a sublicense to give some fraction of the rights in the original license. For example, a sublicense rarely includes the right to sublicense, which the original license must have included for there to be a sublicense. Commented Nov 3, 2011 at 4:22
  • 4
    @vartec: Essentially, you're arguing that a copyright license that grants the right to sublicense somehow actually doesn't grant the right to sublicense. I'm not sure on what basis you're making this argument though. Do you have some cite to any relevant legal authority? Are you saying a copyright holder can't grant others the right to license his work? Or do you think the MIT license somehow fails to do this or doesn't intend to? Commented Nov 3, 2011 at 19:35
  • 1
    @David: you don't seem to understand what "sublicensing" means. Commented Nov 5, 2011 at 17:16
  • 2
    @vartec: A link to a source that explains it would be great, because I think you don't understand what it means. Commented Nov 5, 2011 at 17:18
  • 7
    The MIT license has this bit in it: "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." That means any fork would need to be available under the MIT license. The changes could be listed as GPL. The fork could be listed as GPL+MIT. But the fork can not be listed as GPL only - that is a clear violation of the MIT license. Commented Jul 17, 2017 at 22:18