3 ms·

> As ProjectB made no changes, there was no creative input, so they cannot use copyright law to enforce difference license terms. I'm not sure that's true. BSD

> As ProjectB made no changes, there was no creative input, so they cannot use copyright law to enforce difference license terms. I'm not sure that's true. BSD-style licenses allow you to sublicense the code under a more restrictive license if you feel like it. This is has no real-world effect though. If you have code licensed under two licenses you (the user) can always choose to use to code under the more permissive license (MIT in our case). But technically, it's licensed under two and I don't think they have to be compatible. By the way: This has nothing to do with copyright. If I didn't change your code than I'm not a copyright holder of your code. Doesn't mean I can't license it to other people under a different license though.

dalke 12y ago
I'm sure it is true. See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp . Yes, there is a real-world effect. As I mentioned and jeffmould wrote, I can use those part of ProjectB which came from ProjectA without being subject to the teamhappy license of ProjectB. It's not a question of dual licenses, it's one of license compatibility. If I am IBM, and SCO sues me because my distribution of the Linux kernel contains code which is part of Unix, whose copyright is controlled by SCO, and without an SCO license, then a valid response is to point out to SCO (and the court) that that shared code was released into the public domain by AT&T. Even if some Linux kernel developer actually did copy the code from SCO Unix (very unlikely!), there is no new copyright claim by SCO for "slavish" copying.