> You may NOT replace the MIT license with the LGPL. Hm. I'm confused. The MIT license (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php) on the one hand says you may "sublicense" (re-license?) the code,
Re-license means changing the license. Sub-license means adding one or more licenses. You can sub-license a MIT licensed work under the GPL. You may not (unless you are the copyright holder) re-license a MIT licensed work under the GPL. but OTOH says, "[snip] this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software." So, if you must include that "permission notice", does that mean the code must by definition be licensed under those terms (i.e. the MIT license)? No, it means you must include the `permission notice'. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
