3 ms·

That's not the problem here. The original release must include the license, otherwise the code is not following the terms of the license (in the case of MIT).

by niggler 13y ago

That's not the problem here. The original release must include the license, otherwise the code is not following the terms of the license (in the case of MIT). And as for GPL and Apache, a link to the license must be furnished. This isn't about subsequent redistribution (and if it were, I'd agree with your skepticism). The primary distribution must also follow the terms. You can't cherrypick which parts of the license you wish to follow.

lmm 13y ago
>That's not the problem here. The original release must include the license, otherwise the code is not following the terms of the license (in the case of MIT). And as for GPL and Apache, a link to the license must be furnished. Why's that a problem? If you own the copyright, you have the right to distribute your code, and you have the right to grant other people permission to redistribute your code under the MIT license or any other license, whether or not you yourself are complying with the terms of said license.