... but you went ahead and did it anyway. MIT software can be absorbed by GPL2 software, but not vice versa since MIT allows the code to be further incorporated into and distributed as non-free software, a permission not granted by GPL2.
I am opposed to people snarfing GPL2 code up for their non-free software tarpits, and transferring GPL2 code to MIT without the GPL2 author explicitly re-releasing as MIT would allow that. On June 2, 2021 11:51:01 PM PDT, Berwin A Turlach <berwin.turl...@gmail.com> wrote: >G'day Jeff, > >On Wed, 02 Jun 2021 11:34:21 -0700 >Jeff Newmiller <jdnew...@dcn.davis.ca.us> wrote: > >Not that I want to get involved in old discussions :), but... > >> MIT is more permissive than GPL2, > >... this statement depends on how one defines "permissive". > >MIT requires that you fulfil: "The above copyright notice and this >permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial >portions of the Software." (https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT) > >Whereas GPL 2 merely requires that you "[...] conspicuously and >appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and >disclaimer of warranty [...]". > >Thus, arguably, GPL 2 is more permissive. > >> so there is a collision there. > >Well, luckily the FSF does not think that the MIT license is >incompatible with the GPL license, though it finds the term "MIT >license" misleading and discourages its use, see >https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html > >Cheers, > > Berwin -- Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity. ______________________________________________ R-package-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-package-devel
