[erlang-questions] GNU GPL, MIT, BSD and compatibility

[Matthew Dempsky]

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 6:52 AM, David-Sarah Hopwood
<david.hopwood@REDACTED> wrote:
>  "A" is correct. But the GPL is a red herring here. I can take any
>  MIT-licensed code and redistribute it with the additional license term
>  "to use this code, you must give me your first-born child", for example [*]
>  (enforcability aside). This is not a problem, primarily because someone
>  can still use the code distributed under the original license, and not
>  give me their first-born child. The fact that the original copyright
>  holder(s) chose an MIT or BSD-like license entails that they accepted
>  the possibility of redistribution under any more restrictive license.

The BSD license only grants use, redistribution, and modification.
The recipient of BSD licensed code is granted those rights by the
copyright owner, not by the distributor.

The MIT license also grants sublicensing (among some other rights),
but otherwise the same idea applies.