"Anthony W. Youngman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If it's external non-GPL, you can't change its licence. So *YOU* *CAN* > mix it with both GPL and your own software. > > But you CAN'T then DISTRIBUTE the result. The GPL says you must > distribute the non-GPL code as if it were GPL
Not quite: the GPL says only that you may not impose *additional* restrictions beyond those in the GPL. There are a number of non-GPL licenses that, because their restrictions are a subset of those in the GPL, are thus compatible with the GPL. I believe the original poster spoke of an "MIT-style" license; this term could refer to any of a number of different licenses, so I'll assume they mean instead terms equivalent to the Expat license. The terms of the Expat license is one example of a license that is not GPL but is GPL-compatible. A work derived both from works licensed GPL and Expat can be redistributed under the GPL. > but you don't own that code and can't change the licence. So you > can't comply with both licences at the same time, so you can't > distribute. If that were true, then it would indeed make the work non-redistributable. If both licenses *can* be satisfied (as in the case of GPL and Expat, by redistributing under the terms of the GPL), then that would be okay. -- \ “About four years ago, I was — no, it was yesterday.” —Steven | `\ Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]