<div dir="ltr">Sublicensing is different from relicensing. You may license our code to others under the terms and conditions of GPL v3 (a sublicense) but you may not remove our MIT license (a relicense) without the permission of those of us who wrote the work. The relevant portion of the MIT license is "The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."<div style="font-size:13.1999998092651px;line-height:13.1999998092651px"> </div><div style="font-size:13.1999998092651px;line-height:13.1999998092651px">I could probably get a check on this from an actual attorney, but I'm pretty sure she'd tell you the same thing I am telling you. </div></div> <div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:36 PM Evgeny Zubok <<a href="mailto:evgeny.zubok@tochka.ru">evgeny.zubok@tochka.ru</a>> wrote: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> > I am not a lawyer either. > > That said, if you are asking whether you can relicense specifically X > code such as XCB XML under the GPL (or any other license) the answer > is no, unless you can get permission from all copyright holders to do > so. (It's not your code, so you can't control its licensing.) The > project you are working with will have to settle for including the XCB > XML under its existing license (which should be fine), for doing > without it, or for getting agreement from all who have contributed to > it. That last seems quite hard to me. This is an excerpt from the license that you, copyright holders, included into the source. If I understand it correctly, the sublicensing *is* allowed unconditionally. There is no claims about any permissions from the authors: | 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: My question is not about compatibility with GPL v3. I know that both are compartible. Your license is MIT-like (not BSD). MIT-like licenses explicitly allow sublicensing (see above). Some commenters told that it is possible to change the license (not copyright! Not authors! Not the original license!) to more restrictive license. GPL v3 seems to be more restrictive, no? Ok, we all are not the lawers, but the license selected by you. You are last resort in this question. _______________________________________________ Xcb mailing list <a href="mailto:Xcb@lists.freedesktop.org" target="_blank">Xcb@lists.freedesktop.org</a> <a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xcb" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xcb</a></blockquote></div>