MIT vs. BSD vs. Dual License
Posted
by
ryanve
on Stack Overflow
See other posts from Stack Overflow
or by ryanve
Published on 2011-11-28T01:37:29Z
Indexed on
2011/11/28
1:51 UTC
Read the original article
Hit count: 461
My understanding is that:
- MIT-licensed projects can be used/redistributed in BSD-licensed projects.
- BSD-licensed projects can be used/redistributed in MIT-licensed projects.
- The MIT and the BSD 2-clause licenses are essentially identical.
- BSD 3-clause = BSD 2-clause + the "no endorsement" clause
- Issuing a dual license allows users to choose from those licenses—not be bound to both.
If all of the above is correct, then what is the point of using a dual MIT/BSD license? Even if the BSD refers to the 3-clause version, then can't a user legally choose to only abide by the MIT license?
It seems that if you really want the "no endorsement" clause to apply then you have to license it as just BSD (not dual). If you don't care about the "no endorsement" clause, then MIT alone is sufficient and MIT/BSD is redundant.
Similarly, since the MIT and BSD licenses are both "GPL-compatible" and can be redistributed in GPL-licensed projects, then dual licensing MIT/GPL also seems redundant.
© Stack Overflow or respective owner
