License ?

Posted Nov 7, 2013 15:05 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
In reply to: License ? by meuh
Parent article: Ktap almost gets into 3.13

What exactly is your concern here?

to post comments

License ?

Posted Nov 7, 2013 16:12 UTC (Thu) by meuh (guest, #22042) [Link] (2 responses)

Is it misleading to state GPLv2 license ? Would be MIT/GPLv2 more accurate ?

I've understand that MIT and GPLv2 are compatible licenses,
but does MIT license allows one to re-license code under a different one, even compatible ?

License ?

Posted Nov 7, 2013 16:16 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (1 responses)

Yes, it does. It is a very permissive license and the combination is under GPLv2. That is accurate.

License ?

Posted Nov 15, 2013 20:18 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

No MIT does NOT allow you to relicence code ... no licence will unless it explicitly says you can.

But you can mix MIT and GPL and the result can only be distributed under the GPL. If, however, the recipient strips out the GPL code, they can redistribute the MIT-licenced stuff under the MIT licence.

When you mix code under different licences, you can't change any of the licences, and you have to comply with all of them. The magic of the GPL lies in the fact that it is explicitly incompatible with any licence that restricts it. In order to be compatible with the GPL, any other licence must let you do everything the GPL lets you do. So, in complying with the GPL, you comply with all the compatible licences as a matter of course.

Cheers,
Wol