[erlang-questions] GNU GPL, MIT, BSD and compatibility
Sun Apr 13 12:50:05 CEST 2008
Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Richard Carlsson <> wrote:
>> On the contrary, the only way a license *can* be GPL-compatible is
>> if it allows such relicensing. The MIT and Rodified BSD licenses,
>> for example, both allow this (mainly because they do not *disallow*
>> relicensing as long as it is in a compatible way), while the original
>> BSD license with its "banner" clauses is incompatible due to its extra
> The MIT license explicitly permits sublicensing, but the Modified BSD
> license does not. I don't think your argument is legally sound.
Yeah, probably not in the case of BSD: it actually only allows
"redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification", while the MIT license allows you "to deal in the
Software without restriction, [...]". Thanks for the correction.
PS. "Rodified" was a fun word; I must use it more often.
More information about the erlang-questions