Hacker News Reader

"dual licensed" - guaranteed to double your licensing confusion.

Can't we just use the MIT part? What's the point of having two FOSS licenses, one being non-viral?

Also, beware of submerged patent mines.

I don't think adding a GPLv3 dual to an MIT license changes much. You can derive a work from MIT licensed code and license your work with a more restrictive license. You would still need to reproduce the MIT license alongside your GPLv3 license which would be confusing.

The author is giving you the option to omit the MIT text and have a pure GPLv3 if you wish to restrict access to your software in that way.

>reproduce the MIT license alongside your GPLv3 license

The MIT license must be included in the provided software, but it isn't a part of the new license.

Don't all MIT licensed projects have this possibility de facto? I mean, I can take any other MIT licensed software, add some bits of mine GPL licensed, and release the whole thing as just GPL.

The whole thing is not GPL, someone can still just replace your changes with more MIT code and use the whole thing under BSD. You cannot change the license of someone else's code.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com