[Xcb] License of XCB-XML and GPL v3+

[Bart Massey]

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."

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.

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:36 PM Evgeny Zubok <evgeny.zubok at tochka.ru> wrote:

>
> > 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
> Xcb at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xcb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xcb/attachments/20150805/3db8759d/attachment.html>