> 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 > [snip] conveying rights reserved to copyright owner(s) > under the terms of the MIT license.
Ohhhhhh. I see now. Thank you for the clarification! Terekhov did not clarify anything, infact, he has only muddled everything and as usual does not make sense. The GPL is not a contract, neither is the MIT license. Sub-license means exactly what it means, licensing a work under one or more licenses. In short, slap the GPL onto the MIT licensed work, don't remove the original copyright notice (keep the `permission notice' as required by the MIT license), and you are just fine. Infact, check the list of free software licenses at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html for licenses that are compatible with the GPL (i.e. you can sub-license works which use these licenses). Cheers. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
