3 ms·

Because the ability to sublicense is the whole point of permissive copyright licenses. The point of confusion is saying that you can't sublicense, when you very

Because the ability to sublicense is the whole point of permissive copyright licenses. The point of confusion is saying that you can't sublicense, when you very explicitly can. The reason why it would be useful to sublicense it as GPL would be to intermix it with changes that are GPL. The combined work would be covered by the terms of the GPL, and the original work would remain covered by the MIT license.

dartos 3y ago
> Because the ability to sublicense is the whole point of permissive copyright licenses. What makes you think this? The point of licenses like GPL (copyleft licenses) is to prevent sublicensing. GPL sets very specific rules and you need to follow them. You can’t just ignore them and change the code’s license. MIT isn’t copyleft in that sense (as you don’t _have_ to release changes you make to MIT code) but any code released based on MIT code must also include the MIT license. You can’t just change the license all willy nilly, that would defeat the purpose.
- Zambyte 3y ago
  > What makes you think this? The body of the license, particularly in contrast to the copyright granted automatically, and other copyright licenses. The MIT and BSD licenses are not very long and quite easy to digest. I recommend giving them a read. > The point of licenses like GPL (copyleft licenses) is to prevent sublicensing. The juxtaposition with the previous question makes me think you may have missed that your question was in reply to permissive licenses, or maybe you think that the GPL is a permissive license? Either way: I agree. The GPL does prevent (further) sublicensing. > [...] but any code released based on MIT code must also include the MIT license. Yes. That's why I said: > That effectively nullifies the value of slapping the GPL on it, but you can do it. In my previous comment. Because when you simply slap the GPL on some MIT code and release it like that, people can choose to use the MIT licensed code with the MIT license instead. Effectively nullifying the value of the GPL. > You can’t just change the license all willy nilly, that would defeat the purpose. Never meant to suggest you could.

dartos 3y ago

> Because the ability to sublicense is the whole point of permissive copyright licenses. What makes you think this? The point of licenses like GPL (copyleft licenses) is to prevent sublicensing. GPL sets very specific rules and you need to follow them. You can’t just ignore them and change the code’s license. MIT isn’t copyleft in that sense (as you don’t _have_ to release changes you make to MIT code) but any code released based on MIT code must also include the MIT license. You can’t just change the license all willy nilly, that would defeat the purpose.

Zambyte 3y ago
> What makes you think this? The body of the license, particularly in contrast to the copyright granted automatically, and other copyright licenses. The MIT and BSD licenses are not very long and quite easy to digest. I recommend giving them a read. > The point of licenses like GPL (copyleft licenses) is to prevent sublicensing. The juxtaposition with the previous question makes me think you may have missed that your question was in reply to permissive licenses, or maybe you think that the GPL is a permissive license? Either way: I agree. The GPL does prevent (further) sublicensing. > [...] but any code released based on MIT code must also include the MIT license. Yes. That's why I said: > That effectively nullifies the value of slapping the GPL on it, but you can do it. In my previous comment. Because when you simply slap the GPL on some MIT code and release it like that, people can choose to use the MIT licensed code with the MIT license instead. Effectively nullifying the value of the GPL. > You can’t just change the license all willy nilly, that would defeat the purpose. Never meant to suggest you could.