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

[Richard Carlsson]

Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Richard Carlsson <richardc@REDACTED> 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
>>  restrictions.
> 
> 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.

     /Richard

PS. "Rodified" was a fun word; I must use it more often.