Le Sat, 22 Aug 2009 12:14:22 +0200, Anoop Kumar Narayanan <anoop.kn@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit:
That's the point his addon isn't MIT anymore with GPL code, its GPL. Moreover, GPL paranoia comes into play only during the time of redistribution, If GPL code is part of the redistributable, then the license of the redistributable is should be GPL.
I don't think so. This is the case when you are mixing GPL with proprietary software. But when other parts of your source are MIT licenced, there is no problem, because the MIT licence is GPL-compatible. All your distributed binary and sources already comply with the GPL, you provide all the required sourcecode and all that stuff.
What happen is :-If someone want to relicence the whole thing as GPL and work on it from there, he can do it. -If someone want to make a closed-source (or MIT-compatible but GPL-incompatible in another way) distribution, he has to remove the GPL-licenced parts. This does not make other MIT-Licenced sourcefiles automagically unusable for them. And we provide an easy way to remove this parts.
So yes, your distributed binary end up being GPL-licenced in some way. But the sourcefiles that were MIT are still available as MIT, and as MIT is GPL-compatible, can be implicitly converted to GPL as needed. There is nothing enforcing you to relicence them explicitly.
-- Adrien Destugues / PulkoMandy http://pulkomandy.ath.cx
