Re: relicensing from MIT to LGPL

[jmg3000]

> > Just to make one distinction: looking up the term
> > "sublicense" (http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/), it
> > says the meaning is "a license granted by a licensee
> > that grants some or all of the rights (as to a patent)
> > acquired under the original license".
>
> Right.
>
> > So, "some or all" sounds like either redistributing the
> > code under the same MIT license, or else re-licensing
> > it, granting less rights than the MIT license provides
> > (for example, the GPL).
>
> Sublicensing the code under the same MIT license is the
> only option.

A ha! I think I've got it now. On the one hand, the MIT specifies that
you may sublicense (which would imply granting "some or all" of the
original rights), but then goes on to explicitly say "this permission
notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the
Software". Now, common sense tells me that including that "permission
notice" is the same thing as licensing the code under those terms, and
so, therefore you may not grant fewer rights when sublicensing. QED.

On the topic of "permission notice" vs. license vs. contract, it seems
to me that the intention of the law is that they're all pretty much the
same thing. That is, when you give someone permission to redistribute
your software under some specific terms, even if you don't shake the
person's hand or get a signature, you're extending the offer out there
and someone distributing your work is implicitly agreeing to the terms
(otherwise they wouldn't be redistributing it).