Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL

[Alexander Terekhov]

jmg3000@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > You may NOT replace the MIT license
> > with the LGPL.
> 
> Hm. I'm confused. The MIT license
> (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php) on the one hand
> says you may "sublicense" (re-license?) the code, but OTOH says,

Sublicense doesn't mean "relicense" under the any terms you like. It 
just means that you, as a licensee, got the permission to enter into 
a contract with other parties (and sue those licensees for breach of 
contract) conveying rights reserved to copyright owner(s) under the 
terms of the MIT license.

> "[snip] this permission notice shall be included in all copies or
> substantial portions of the Software."
> 
> So, if you must include that "permission notice", does that mean the
> code must by definition be licensed under those terms (i.e. the MIT
> license)?

Yep. 

regards,
alexander.