Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL

[Alexander Terekhov]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> The GPL is not a contract, 

Sez who? )Besides you and other brainwashed GNUtians, that is.) 

Here's what the FSF own hired lawyers said in court of law.

http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace_v_FSF_37.pdf

<quote>

the Court can examine the GPL itself. "[T]o the extent that the
terms of an attached contract conflict with the allegations of the
complaint, the contract controls."

</quote> 

See? The CONTRACT controls.

>           neither is the MIT license. 

Both are contracts conveying rights reserved to copyright owners 
subject to contractual conditions and covenants. 

>                                       Sub-license means exactly what
> it means, licensing a work under one or more licenses.

It doesn't mean that.

regards,
alexander.