4 ms·

In this case the WordPress-Editor-iOS retained the copyright notice in the file copies from the ZSSRichTextEditor project. But did not include the LICENSE file

• carussell 10y ago
  > The MIT/BSD projects are not separated out. I think they can claim GPL license on their created code, but that has to been clearly identified. Easier if they removed the MIT/BSD components, and make them git submodules. Using MIT licensed projects doesn't require you to keep the code for the parts you've adopted eternally isolated from your own. If that were a requirement, that would entail an inability to make any improvements without also distributing those improvements under the MIT license―which is directly antithetical to the permissiveness that the MIT license aims for. The parts do not have to be easily separable.[1] To be clear: mixing MIT source into a project (whether by copying files, or by copying snippets) and distributing the result under a license that is not MIT is something that is absolutely kosher. The only requirements are that you have to reproduce the MIT license text and any corresponding copyright notice somewhere when you start distributing the thing to other people. Look into what Google and Apple do with Android and iOS or type about:license into Firefox for three really great examples of how to satisfy the requirements of third-party projects when incorporating others' code into a project with a license that differs from the original. The only thing Automattic is in the wrong with here is to have linked to the licenses and copyright notices of the original project rather than include a copy of if inside their own distribution, which is arguably a faux pas in some circumstances and in some circles, but it's easy enough to remedy and no court would ever award past damages for it. 1. For a license that does work like that, i.e., a weak, file-based copyleft, you can look at the MPL. http://mozilla.org/MPL/ http://mozilla.org/MPL/