-
|
This appears to be a bit shady case of re-licensing of a perfectly permissive code. Sure, it is allowed by the MIT license itself, but still is a rather bad move, especially towards OSes that try to avoid copyleft software or otherwise isolate its use. Is there any rationale published in this regard? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 1 comment
-
|
So to clarify: nothing is being re-licensed, it's just any new code I add, especially in new source files, is licensed under MPL-2. And the reason is simple, and is the likely most common reason why people choose a copyleft license: I don't want others to take my code and benefit from it without contributing back. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
So to clarify: nothing is being re-licensed, it's just any new code I add, especially in new source files, is licensed under MPL-2.
And the reason is simple, and is the likely most common reason why people choose a copyleft license: I don't want others to take my code and benefit from it without contributing back.