5 ms·
(IANAL) Here's an example where an MIT-licensed project switched to APGL recently without needing to contact contributors[0]. Interestingly, the MIT license e
by jbboehr 3y ago
(IANAL)
Here's an example where an MIT-licensed project switched to APGL recently without needing to contact contributors[0].
Interestingly, the MIT license explicitly names and allows sublicensing, but the 2-BSD and 0-BSD do not call it out explicitly.
tldrlegal[1] seems to think 0-BSD allows sublicensing, but doesn't mention it on the page for 2-BSD[2]. I'm not sure what to make of that.
[0]: https://github.com/immich-app/immich/discussions/7023#discussioncomment-8486773 https://github.com/immich-app/immich/discussions/7023#discus...
[1]: https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/bsd-0-clause-license https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/bsd-0-clause-license
[2]: https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/bsd-2-clause-license-freebsd https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/bsd-2-clause-license-freeb...
- torstenvl 3y ago0-BSD doesn't have any conditions at all. 2-BSD does. The MIT → AGPL example isn't very illustrative. The requirements under AGPL are a strict superset of the requirements under MIT. Going MIT → 0-BSD is a bit trickier, because distribution under 0-BSD doesn't meet the requirements of MIT.