MIT vs GPL license [closed]

Answer 1

It seems to me that the chief difference between the MIT license and GPL is that the MIT doesn't require modifications be open sourced whereas the GPL does.

True - in general. You don't have to open-source your changes if you're using GPL. You could modify it and use it for your own purpose as long as you're not distributing it. BUT... if you DO distribute it, then your entire project that is using the GPL code also becomes GPL automatically. Which means, it must be open-sourced, and the recipient gets all the same rights as you - meaning, they can turn around and distribute it, modify it, sell it, etc. And that would include your proprietary code which would then no longer be proprietary - it becomes open source.

The difference with MIT is that even if you actually distribute your proprietary code that is using the MIT licensed code, you do not have to make the code open source. You can distribute it as a closed app where the code is encrypted or is a binary. Including the MIT-licensed code can be encrypted, as long as it carries the MIT license notice.

is the GPL is more restrictive than the MIT license?

Yes, very much so.

Answer 2

Can I include GPL licensed code in a MIT licensed product?

You can. GPL is free software as well as MIT is, both licenses do not restrict you to bring together the code where as "include" is always two-way.

In copyright for a combined work (that is two or more works form together a work), it does not make much of a difference if the one work is "larger" than the other or not.

So if you include GPL licensed code in a MIT licensed product you will at the same time include a MIT licensed product in GPL licensed code as well.

As a second opinion, the OSI listed the following criteria (in more detail) for both licenses (MIT and GPL):

1. Free Redistribution
2. Source Code
3. Derived Works
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
7. Distribution of License
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

Both allow the creation of combined works, which is what you've been asking for.

If combining the two works is considered being a derivate, then this is not restricted as well by both licenses.

And both licenses do not restrict to distribute the software.

It seems to me that the chief difference between the MIT license and GPL is that the MIT doesn't require modifications be open sourced whereas the GPL does.

The GPL doesn't require you to release your modifications only because you made them. That's not precise.

You might mix this with distribiution of software under GPL which is not what you've asked about directly.

Is that correct - is the GPL is more restrictive than the MIT license?

This is how I understand it:

As far as distribution counts, you need to put the whole package under GPL. MIT code inside of the package will still be available under MIT whereas the GPL applies to the package as a whole if not limited by higher rights.

"Restrictive" or "more restrictive" / "less restrictive" depends a lot on the point of view. For a software-user the MIT might result in software that is more restricted than the one available under GPL even some call the GPL more restrictive nowadays. That user in specific will call the MIT more restrictive. It's just subjective to say so and different people will give you different answers to that.

As it's just subjective to talk about restrictions of different licenses, you should think about what you would like to achieve instead:

• If you want to restrict the use of your modifications, then MIT is able to be more restrictive than the GPL for distribution and that might be what you're looking for.
• In case you want to ensure that the freedom of your software does not get restricted that much by the users you distribute it to, then you might want to release under GPL instead of MIT.

As long as you're the author it's you who can decide.

So the most restrictive person ever is the author, regardless of which license anybody is opting for ;)

Answer 3

IANAL but as I see it....

While you can combine GPL and MIT code, the GPL is tainting. Which means the package as a whole gets the limitations of the GPL. As that is more restrictive you can no longer use it in commercial (or rather closed source) software. Which also means if you have a MIT/BSD/ASL project you will not want to add dependencies to GPL code.

Adding a GPL dependency does not change the license of your code but it will limit what people can do with the artifact of your project. This is also why the ASF does not allow dependencies to GPL code for their projects.

http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

Answer 4

You are correct that the GPL is more restrictive than the MIT license.

You cannot include GPL code in a MIT licensed product. If you distribute a combined work that combines GPL and MIT code (except in some particular situations, e.g. 'mere aggregation'), that distribution must be compliant with the GPL.

You can include MIT licensed code in a GPL product. The whole combined work must be distributed in a way compliant with the GPL. If you have made changes to the MIT parts of the code, you would be required to publish the source for those changes if you distribute an application that contains GPL and MIT code.

If you are the copyright owner of the GPL code, you can of course choose to release that code under the MIT license instead - in that case it's your code and you can publish it under as many licenses as you want.