I'm not a lawyer, but I care about licensing. The MIT License would allow you to relicense it, but you must keep the original copyrights in tact. (From license: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, *with or without modification*, are permitted...)
It does have a list of "buts" too. You must keep the copyright and disclaimer in the source files you used, and your documentation must also do that. Typical answer is to add a header above it in the source and then state that all modifications from the original are AGPL... Original code is: leave theirs alone. You typically add "Portions of the code are based on Django Rest Framework which is *paste copyright and lack of warranty etc disclaimer*" to your documentation. On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 7:12 PM, Carl Meyer <c...@meyerloewen.net> wrote: > Hi Andrey, > > On 01/07/2016 04:23 PM, Andrey Antukh wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:42 AM, Florian Apolloner > > The DRFv2 (as DRFv3) as far as I know is licensed using MIT permissive > > license that does not impide take the source and re-license it under > > other license. > > > > taiga.io <http://taiga.io> initially have started using the DRF just > > like a dependency but over time the dev-team found the needs monky-patch > > many and many parts of it... Later, the dev-team have decided just > > include it in the code base and remove useless (for taiga) code and add > > additional features. > > > > Much of code/improvements is contributed back to the DRF (v2), other as > > third party packages and some other is no, because the approaches are > > diverged and the changes are just to much opinionated/coupled to the > > taiga usage. > > > > I hope I have solved your question. > > I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me the problem is not the use of the > code (which the license does allow), but the re-licensing and the lack > of the original DRF license in your codebase. > > You are allowed to use the code and re-distribute it, but AFAIK you are > not allowed to re-license it unless you are the copyright owner. And the > terms of the DRF license do require that the DRF license text be > preserved along with any redistribution of the DRF code, which (as far > as I can see) Taiga currently doesn't do. > > So if I'm right (which I may well not be), I think the issue is easily > resolved by including the original DRF license text in your base/api/ > directory, and clarifying that that license (not the AGPL) is the > license that applies to all code taken from DRF. > > Carl > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/568F0D05.3050901%40meyerloewen.net > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Joe Tennies tenn...@gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CACiOJ6sFEP%3D-i3z8ge3JDXm7%3Dn0xDgg3bOE%2BjHJDJruuvz8ONw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
