[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL
From: |
jmg3000 |
Subject: |
Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL |
Date: |
12 May 2006 08:17:47 -0700 |
User-agent: |
G2/0.2 |
Alexander wrote:
> > Re-license means changing the license. Sub-license means adding
> > one or more licenses.
>
> It means adding one or more (sub)licenseEs. I.e. another sublicense
> contract between a sublicensor and another (sub)licensee. And under
> the MIT terms.
Just to make one distinction: looking up the term "sublicense"
(http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/), it says the meaning is "a license
granted by a licensee that grants some or all of the rights (as to a
patent) acquired under the original license".
So, "some or all" sounds like either redistributing the code under the
same MIT license, or else re-licensing it, granting less rights than
the MIT license provides (for example, the GPL).
Also, I'm guessing that implies "some or all *(but not more)* rights".
You of course can't grant *more* rights, since you're not the copyright
holder.
- Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/12
- Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/05/12
- Message not available
- Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/12
- Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra, 2006/05/12
- Message not available
- Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/12
- Message not available
- Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/11
- Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2006/05/12
- Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL,
jmg3000 <=
- Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL, Alexander Terekhov, 2006/05/12
- Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL, jmg3000, 2006/05/12