3 ms·
>as there's nothing in either BSD or MIT that allows for re-licensing But also nothing preventing you from doing it. MIT can be relicensed, for sure.
by moralestapia 2y ago
>as there's nothing in either BSD or MIT that allows for re-licensing
But also nothing preventing you from doing it.
MIT can be relicensed, for sure.
- jenadine 2y agoOf course not. What makes you believe that? The MIT license is not very long, and it contains this sentence: > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. Which clearly state that you can't remove that license to put your own.
- Tomte 2y ago> What makes you believe that? Probably the sublicense wording that many techies confuse with relicensing. Also sloppy wording in discussions like HN where "relicense" is sometimes used as a shortcut for "combined with a compatibly-licensed work in a larger work that can be used under the whole-work license".
- moralestapia 2y agoIf you're the sole copyright owner, of course you can. That is not the case with other licenses.
- Tomte 2y agoNo, it cannot. You can incorporate an MIT licensed work into a work that is licensed differently, but compatibly (not a real problem with MIT), but now you have three works that are under different licenses: the MIT part, the "other" part and the whole. The MIT part stays MIT. Someone can cherry-pick just that file (or file snippet) and use it under MIT, without caring about the license of the whole.
- maleldil 2y agoWhat happens when a file was previously under MIT, the license changes, and a new change is made? Do I need to look at the git blame to find which parts I can use as MIT?
- Tomte 2y agoYou don't need blame necessarily, just git log. You look at the latest version under your preferred license. That's the one you take your snippets from.