61

This is a tricky question. Open source licenses are generally irrevocable. Once you publish something under a license, you can relicense future versions but cannot retroactively change the license. Yet here, you have never directly published the project under the old license. My take on this is that the MIT license on the old commits is in effect for those ...


51

As long as you are the only contributor: You can do it, without further problem. Otherwise: It is difficult. If others contributed to your project, you have to respect their rights. So you can only assume the rights given to you by the open source license. Your options are: contact all contributors and ask for their permission switch to a compatible ...


51

Not only are you not required to change the licence, you are not permitted to. The code you took at the time was, according to you, conveyed under GPLv3. You've worked on it, and made a derivative work (in copyright terms), which you can only lawfully distribute under GPLv3 (see GPLv3 s5c). Note also that now upstream have relicensed, you cannot trivially ...


44

I don't think so, no. CC-BY-SA 3.0 allows in s4 that You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms of this License ... This Section ... applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collection You may Distribute or Publicly Perform an Adaptation only under the terms of: (i) this License; (ii) a later version of this License with ...


37

For me, this exposes a weakness in the mental model many coders seem to have about the operation of copyright. Consider a pile of bricks, representing code contributions to a work. In one (surprisingly common) model, each brick is painted in a colour representing its licence status; red for BSD, blue for GPL, green for Apache, and so on. Whoever made and ...


32

As the copyright holder you can choose to re-license your code as you see fit. What you cannot do is revoke a license if it was given in perpetuity or before the term of the license expires. What does this mean? You are able to license your code to different people using different licenses. You can even let them choose which license to use. You can sell the ...


26

Anyone who received the code under the GPLv3 can redistribute it under those terms forever (and so, too, may those recipients, etc.) so if the set of recipients of your code so far is a nonempty set, you may not be able to stop future redistribution of your past code under GPLv3 terms. If no one has downloaded your code, or if anyone who downloaded it didn't ...


25

If the BSD license in question is the two- or three-clause variant (i.e. without the advertising clause), I think you're technically allowed to do it, but you couldn't really enforce it: anyone who obtained a copy of the code you're distributing could re-use the BSD-licensed code under the provisions of the BSD license only, and the GPL wouldn't apply. (The ...


23

Yes, and no. As per the question you linked, if you're the only contributor, you can do whatever you want with the project. You can take it off GitHub or whatever platform you decided, you can compile and sell it, and whatnot. However You cannot do that if you aren't the sole contributor. You are no longer the only rights holder, and thus, the decision ...


20

Not with the license as it is. You will need to contact all the licensors of the GPL code, and request that they release it to you in a license that is compatible with the BSD license. Alternatively, you can release your code as GPL too.


20

That depends. If you didn't make any changes in your fork of the project, you can just update your fork to include the latest upstream changes and get the license change along with it. If the copyrights on the changes made on your fork are all owned by you, and you agree with re-licensing those changes under the MIT license, then you can merge the upstream ...


19

As long as you are the only contributor to a codebase, you can switch the license as you like. So yes, you can change the license, as long as you didn't use code of others. Check the answers to this question about relicensing, if you want to know under which circumstances you can change the license. Basically the same applies here, as you practically you ...


18

The important thing to know is that they (almost certainly (*)) cannot retroactively change the license of the version that you are using. They can change the license to new versions they release. So, if you want to keep using what you took when it was marked MIT, you are fine. You can even make a fork and invite other like-minded people to enhance and ...


18

The short answer is no. You cannot remove a BSD license notice, otherwise you are no longer licensed per the BSD (many variants) that all share the essential requirement to retain the copyright and license/notice texts in source and/or binaries. If you look at a BSD variant text from wikipedia: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above ...


18

As the copyright holder you are in no way bound by any open source license you choose to distribute your own work under. While you cannot retroactively change the license terms of a particular distribution of your software for those who have already obtained it, you can permit use and re-distribution under the terms of a more permissive license of any ...


18

You can do nothing. Releasing software has nothing to do with version numbering; it is a matter of conveying it (which includes "making it available") to others, and making the licence terms under which it's conveyed clear. Once you have conveyed code under a licence, people may use it under that licence until the terms of that licence say they cannot. In ...


16

You are correct that re-licensing virtually always requires the permission of the copyright holder. This was a rather exceptional case. All material on Wikipedia used to be under the license GFDL v1.2, or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. The next version released by the FSF, GFDL v1.3, contained a provision that allowed any ...


15

First of all: There are three different BSD-licenses. The original BSD-license has four clauses, including a advertisement-clause. This advertisement-clause is incompatible with the GPL, so you cannot redistribute it as GPL, the same as you cannot combine it with GPL-code. The modified BSD-licenses drop this clause and make BSD compatible with GPL. This ...


14

Much would depend on the initial license chosen when creating the OS project. If the OSP was originally published under a copyleft license such as GPL, then the answer is clearly no. They can not continue development under a more restrictive license without violating the terms of the original license. A permissive license, such as Apache, allows the ...


13

If you are not the sole author then it's more complicated. All contributors must agree to the license change explicitly. This agreement can be under the form of a Contributor License Agreement which states that the project owner is allowed to change the license or the previous license itself which grants the rights to distribute under a compatible license. ...


13

No, you cannot. By including GPL-code, you are including a dependency of GPL-protected code, and therefore your code is only derived work from it. The terms of GPL requires that derived work is also published under GPL. From the GPL faq: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under ...


13

If it is your program (and not a derivative of somebody else's program, or something that a lot of other people has contributed to), you have the full right to do whatever you like. So just create a new distribution and state that this distro is under "GNU GPL version 3", replace LICENSE.txt and edit any copyright notices to refer to the correct license - ...


13

Just like everyone can take your MIT-licensed software and make it proprietary without having to ask all of its authors for permission, you can take your MIT-licensed software and license it under the GPL without asking the contributors. MIT-licensed software can be integrated/made into GPL-licensed software. The other way around is not possible. The FSF ...


13

Forbidding sale of the software has precedent in OSI-approved licenses, for example SIL-OFL 1.1 says: Neither the Font Software nor any of its individual components, in Original or Modified Versions, may be sold by itself. But there is reason to believe the OFL is an outlier and wouldn't be OSI-approved if submitted today. Also, the OFL is only intended ...


13

I do not think you are reading the compatibility table correctly. When I look at the intersection of I want to copy code under GPLv2 and I want to licence my code under LGPLv2.1 I see a box that says OK: Combination is under GPLv2 only. I read that as saying that you can write some code which you release under the LGPLv2.1, but that if you later combine it ...


12

If you wrote the code yourself, then you're the licensor and can use the code as you see fit, however: GPL does not allow sub-licensing; If you used code from other sources (for example, Stack Overflow), you'll need to attribute the code used, and review the license the code uses if the author/owner needs to give their express permission; If you released ...


12

If you wrote the code, you can do whatever you want with it. You own the code, you own the copyright. A license is you granting others certain rights, but as the author you have not given up any of your own. What you (probably) can't do is then turn around and take legal action against someone who's still using your code under the terms of the old license (...


12

A common misunderstanding is that if you put something online without a license text to accompany it, anyone is free to do with it whatever they want. This isn't true. Whatever you create is copyrighted to you, and can't be re-used without receiving a license from you allowing them to do so. Claims like "all rights reserved", icons like ©, etc. don't mean ...


12

Not all changes are of sufficient novelty to constitute something copyrightable, whether they are additions or deletions. For a simple example, consider any old out of copyright song or hymn of five verses. I could make an 'arrangement' of only the first, second, and fifth verses, but this should not be considered novel enough to be copyrightable. So in ...


11

Technically yes, but practically no. Technically yes - if you're the sole contributor, or you can get agreement with your co-contributors, you can do anything you like. It doesn't matter how you've distributed the software before: the original copyright is yours (or a group's and you have permission to act for that group) and you have permanent rights to do ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible