Re: Extending and releasing open source software
Nate Bargmann wrote:
To the OP: IANAL, etc.
My question upon reading the initial post was whether the MIT license
allows changing the licensing terms? Is it like the BSD no attribution
clause license in that respect? If so, then licensing under the GPL3 is
likely legal. If not, then that opens an entire can of legal worms.
I'm assuming we're talking about the X11 license (there are several
other licenses also sometimes called the "MIT License"). The X11
license says:
------
Copyright (C) <year> by <copyright holders>
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.
-----
Essentially it says:
1. you can do anything you want with the code, but,
2. you don't own it, and you can't change the terms
3. you have to include the above in your code
Now... what you've developed sounds like it may be a "derivative work"
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work) - but note that (per the Copyright Office)
"To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from
the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a
substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of
little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a
new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original
and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for
example, are not copyrightable."
So, depending on whether or not there is sufficient modification and
extension to qualify as a derivative work (a subjective decision):
a. if NOT: a simple statement that "this software is a modified and
extended version of <software name> which is Copyright <date> by <>,
licensed under the following terms ... <include the original license>.
b. if YES: then you need some kind of statement that includes:
- a statement that your program is a derivative of ..., licensed under, ....
- a statement that modifications and extensions are copyright <you>
under terms of the GPL
- something about the combined work (this is where the language gets tricky)
You don't get to change the ownership or licensing terms of the original
code. You get to "use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute,
sublicense, and/or sell copies" as long as you include the original
copyright and license statement.
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In<fnord> practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
Reply to: