[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 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, but OTOH says,
Sublicense doesn't mean "relicense" under the any terms you like. It just means that you, as a licensee, got the permission to enter into a contract with other parties (and sue those licensees for breach of contract) conveying rights reserved to copyright owner(s) under the terms of the MIT license. > "[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)? Yep. regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
