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

Richard Carlsson <>
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
>>  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.


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

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list