Can I relicense my own GPL code into Apache/MIT?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Suppose that I distribute my own code with a GPL license, even though the code use just external MIT or Apache code. In particular, no preexisting GPL code is in it.
Can I later relicense it under MIT or Apache?
gpl mit apache-2.0 relicensing
edited 9 mins ago
curiousdannii
4,03311438
asked 12 hours ago
Rexcirus
1263
New contributor
Rexcirus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Suppose that I distribute my own code with a GPL license, even though the code use just external MIT or Apache code. In particular, no preexisting GPL code is in it.
Can I later relicense it under MIT or Apache?
gpl mit apache-2.0 relicensing
edited 9 mins ago
curiousdannii
4,03311438
asked 12 hours ago
Rexcirus
1263
New contributor
Rexcirus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Does your code include that other MIT or Apache licensed code? If not, why did you mention it?
– Basil Bourque
3 hours ago
Possible duplicate of How can a project be relicensed?
– curiousdannii
9 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Suppose that I distribute my own code with a GPL license, even though the code use just external MIT or Apache code. In particular, no preexisting GPL code is in it.
Can I later relicense it under MIT or Apache?
gpl mit apache-2.0 relicensing
edited 9 mins ago
curiousdannii
4,03311438
asked 12 hours ago
Rexcirus
1263
New contributor
Rexcirus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Suppose that I distribute my own code with a GPL license, even though the code use just external MIT or Apache code. In particular, no preexisting GPL code is in it.
Can I later relicense it under MIT or Apache?
gpl mit apache-2.0 relicensing
gpl mit apache-2.0 relicensing
edited 9 mins ago
curiousdannii
4,03311438
asked 12 hours ago
Rexcirus
1263
New contributor
Rexcirus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 9 mins ago
curiousdannii
4,03311438
asked 12 hours ago
Rexcirus
1263
New contributor
Rexcirus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 9 mins ago
curiousdannii
4,03311438
edited 9 mins ago
curiousdannii
4,03311438
edited 9 mins ago
curiousdannii
4,03311438
4,03311438
asked 12 hours ago
Rexcirus
1263
New contributor
Rexcirus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 12 hours ago
Rexcirus
1263
asked 12 hours ago
Rexcirus
1263
1263
New contributor
Rexcirus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Rexcirus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Rexcirus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Does your code include that other MIT or Apache licensed code? If not, why did you mention it?
– Basil Bourque
3 hours ago
Possible duplicate of How can a project be relicensed?
– curiousdannii
9 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Does your code include that other MIT or Apache licensed code? If not, why did you mention it?
– Basil Bourque
3 hours ago
Possible duplicate of How can a project be relicensed?
– curiousdannii
9 mins ago
Does your code include that other MIT or Apache licensed code? If not, why did you mention it?
– Basil Bourque
3 hours ago
Does your code include that other MIT or Apache licensed code? If not, why did you mention it?
– Basil Bourque
3 hours ago
Possible duplicate of How can a project be relicensed?
– curiousdannii
9 mins ago
Possible duplicate of How can a project be relicensed?
– curiousdannii
9 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
10
down vote
As the copyright holder you are in no way bound by any open source license you choose to distribute your own work under.
While you cannot retroactively change the license terms of a particular distribution of your software for those who have already obtained it, you can change the license of any future distribution however and whenever you like.
answered 11 hours ago
Mans Gunnarsson
1,711215
1
The last paragraph is not quite true. For example, the GPL specifically states (section 10 of version 2) that recipients of the code automatically receive GPL licenses from the original licensor by the operation of the license itself. So you can add another license, but you can't stop people who receive the code (whether from you or from someone else) from receiving a GPL license from you. You can add another license if you want, but everyone you give the code to will also receive a GPL license.
– David Schwartz
3 hours ago
@DavidSchwartz That would be a license for the old version, wouldn't it? And only if they get the old version from someone who's received it under the GPL.
– immibis
43 mins ago
@immibis That would be a license for the old version, yes (including any elements in the new version also in the old version). But it would not matter who they got it from or how they got it. The GPL would be a lot less useful if you had to prove aspects of how you got the work in order to take advantage of it and the GPL specifically has a clause to avoid this (the "recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor" clause). When you place a work under the GPL, you are agreeing to give everyone who receives the work lawfully a license, forever.
– David Schwartz
15 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
If you hold the copyright to some code (usually, because you are the author), you may license that code however you please, and you may issue different licenses at any time. The matter of revoking previously-issued licenses is much trickier and may not be possible. If you have previously issued permission to modify/distribute your code under some version of the GNU GPL, nothing stops you from also issuing permission to modify/distribute the code under a different license like the Apache License.
Note that if you have accepted contributions from any other person, those contributions may be under your original license, licensed to you by that other contributor. You may not re-license another person's code, unless they allow you do so, either by your asking nicely or via a previous agreement like a Contributor License Agreement.
In practice, your code is usually as permissively available as your most permissive license grant. If you had the reverse situation -- your code was under Apache and you want to re-license it under the GPL -- you could issue a GPL grant, but you could not take away the more permissive license grant you already made to any recipients who already downloaded it. People might be more likely to get the permissively-licensed version from someone else than use your more restrictively-licensed version. However, you could issue new code under the GPL only, making users choose between the old permissively-licensed code and the newer version with copyleft-licensed code.
answered 9 hours ago
apsillers♦
14k12346
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
10
down vote
As the copyright holder you are in no way bound by any open source license you choose to distribute your own work under.
While you cannot retroactively change the license terms of a particular distribution of your software for those who have already obtained it, you can change the license of any future distribution however and whenever you like.
answered 11 hours ago
Mans Gunnarsson
1,711215
1
The last paragraph is not quite true. For example, the GPL specifically states (section 10 of version 2) that recipients of the code automatically receive GPL licenses from the original licensor by the operation of the license itself. So you can add another license, but you can't stop people who receive the code (whether from you or from someone else) from receiving a GPL license from you. You can add another license if you want, but everyone you give the code to will also receive a GPL license.
– David Schwartz
3 hours ago
@DavidSchwartz That would be a license for the old version, wouldn't it? And only if they get the old version from someone who's received it under the GPL.
– immibis
43 mins ago
@immibis That would be a license for the old version, yes (including any elements in the new version also in the old version). But it would not matter who they got it from or how they got it. The GPL would be a lot less useful if you had to prove aspects of how you got the work in order to take advantage of it and the GPL specifically has a clause to avoid this (the "recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor" clause). When you place a work under the GPL, you are agreeing to give everyone who receives the work lawfully a license, forever.
– David Schwartz
15 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
As the copyright holder you are in no way bound by any open source license you choose to distribute your own work under.
While you cannot retroactively change the license terms of a particular distribution of your software for those who have already obtained it, you can change the license of any future distribution however and whenever you like.
answered 11 hours ago
Mans Gunnarsson
1,711215
1
The last paragraph is not quite true. For example, the GPL specifically states (section 10 of version 2) that recipients of the code automatically receive GPL licenses from the original licensor by the operation of the license itself. So you can add another license, but you can't stop people who receive the code (whether from you or from someone else) from receiving a GPL license from you. You can add another license if you want, but everyone you give the code to will also receive a GPL license.
– David Schwartz
3 hours ago
@DavidSchwartz That would be a license for the old version, wouldn't it? And only if they get the old version from someone who's received it under the GPL.
– immibis
43 mins ago
@immibis That would be a license for the old version, yes (including any elements in the new version also in the old version). But it would not matter who they got it from or how they got it. The GPL would be a lot less useful if you had to prove aspects of how you got the work in order to take advantage of it and the GPL specifically has a clause to avoid this (the "recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor" clause). When you place a work under the GPL, you are agreeing to give everyone who receives the work lawfully a license, forever.
– David Schwartz
15 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
10
down vote
up vote
10
down vote
As the copyright holder you are in no way bound by any open source license you choose to distribute your own work under.
While you cannot retroactively change the license terms of a particular distribution of your software for those who have already obtained it, you can change the license of any future distribution however and whenever you like.
answered 11 hours ago
Mans Gunnarsson
1,711215
As the copyright holder you are in no way bound by any open source license you choose to distribute your own work under.
While you cannot retroactively change the license terms of a particular distribution of your software for those who have already obtained it, you can change the license of any future distribution however and whenever you like.
answered 11 hours ago
Mans Gunnarsson
1,711215
answered 11 hours ago
Mans Gunnarsson
1,711215
answered 11 hours ago
Mans Gunnarsson
1,711215
answered 11 hours ago
Mans Gunnarsson
1,711215
1,711215
1
The last paragraph is not quite true. For example, the GPL specifically states (section 10 of version 2) that recipients of the code automatically receive GPL licenses from the original licensor by the operation of the license itself. So you can add another license, but you can't stop people who receive the code (whether from you or from someone else) from receiving a GPL license from you. You can add another license if you want, but everyone you give the code to will also receive a GPL license.
– David Schwartz
3 hours ago
@DavidSchwartz That would be a license for the old version, wouldn't it? And only if they get the old version from someone who's received it under the GPL.
– immibis
43 mins ago
@immibis That would be a license for the old version, yes (including any elements in the new version also in the old version). But it would not matter who they got it from or how they got it. The GPL would be a lot less useful if you had to prove aspects of how you got the work in order to take advantage of it and the GPL specifically has a clause to avoid this (the "recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor" clause). When you place a work under the GPL, you are agreeing to give everyone who receives the work lawfully a license, forever.
– David Schwartz
15 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
The last paragraph is not quite true. For example, the GPL specifically states (section 10 of version 2) that recipients of the code automatically receive GPL licenses from the original licensor by the operation of the license itself. So you can add another license, but you can't stop people who receive the code (whether from you or from someone else) from receiving a GPL license from you. You can add another license if you want, but everyone you give the code to will also receive a GPL license.
– David Schwartz
3 hours ago
@DavidSchwartz That would be a license for the old version, wouldn't it? And only if they get the old version from someone who's received it under the GPL.
– immibis
43 mins ago
@immibis That would be a license for the old version, yes (including any elements in the new version also in the old version). But it would not matter who they got it from or how they got it. The GPL would be a lot less useful if you had to prove aspects of how you got the work in order to take advantage of it and the GPL specifically has a clause to avoid this (the "recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor" clause). When you place a work under the GPL, you are agreeing to give everyone who receives the work lawfully a license, forever.
– David Schwartz
15 mins ago
1
1
The last paragraph is not quite true. For example, the GPL specifically states (section 10 of version 2) that recipients of the code automatically receive GPL licenses from the original licensor by the operation of the license itself. So you can add another license, but you can't stop people who receive the code (whether from you or from someone else) from receiving a GPL license from you. You can add another license if you want, but everyone you give the code to will also receive a GPL license.
– David Schwartz
3 hours ago
The last paragraph is not quite true. For example, the GPL specifically states (section 10 of version 2) that recipients of the code automatically receive GPL licenses from the original licensor by the operation of the license itself. So you can add another license, but you can't stop people who receive the code (whether from you or from someone else) from receiving a GPL license from you. You can add another license if you want, but everyone you give the code to will also receive a GPL license.
– David Schwartz
3 hours ago
@DavidSchwartz That would be a license for the old version, wouldn't it? And only if they get the old version from someone who's received it under the GPL.
– immibis
43 mins ago
@DavidSchwartz That would be a license for the old version, wouldn't it? And only if they get the old version from someone who's received it under the GPL.
– immibis
43 mins ago
@immibis That would be a license for the old version, yes (including any elements in the new version also in the old version). But it would not matter who they got it from or how they got it. The GPL would be a lot less useful if you had to prove aspects of how you got the work in order to take advantage of it and the GPL specifically has a clause to avoid this (the "recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor" clause). When you place a work under the GPL, you are agreeing to give everyone who receives the work lawfully a license, forever.
– David Schwartz
15 mins ago
@immibis That would be a license for the old version, yes (including any elements in the new version also in the old version). But it would not matter who they got it from or how they got it. The GPL would be a lot less useful if you had to prove aspects of how you got the work in order to take advantage of it and the GPL specifically has a clause to avoid this (the "recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor" clause). When you place a work under the GPL, you are agreeing to give everyone who receives the work lawfully a license, forever.
– David Schwartz
15 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
If you hold the copyright to some code (usually, because you are the author), you may license that code however you please, and you may issue different licenses at any time. The matter of revoking previously-issued licenses is much trickier and may not be possible. If you have previously issued permission to modify/distribute your code under some version of the GNU GPL, nothing stops you from also issuing permission to modify/distribute the code under a different license like the Apache License.
Note that if you have accepted contributions from any other person, those contributions may be under your original license, licensed to you by that other contributor. You may not re-license another person's code, unless they allow you do so, either by your asking nicely or via a previous agreement like a Contributor License Agreement.
In practice, your code is usually as permissively available as your most permissive license grant. If you had the reverse situation -- your code was under Apache and you want to re-license it under the GPL -- you could issue a GPL grant, but you could not take away the more permissive license grant you already made to any recipients who already downloaded it. People might be more likely to get the permissively-licensed version from someone else than use your more restrictively-licensed version. However, you could issue new code under the GPL only, making users choose between the old permissively-licensed code and the newer version with copyleft-licensed code.
answered 9 hours ago
apsillers♦
14k12346
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
If you hold the copyright to some code (usually, because you are the author), you may license that code however you please, and you may issue different licenses at any time. The matter of revoking previously-issued licenses is much trickier and may not be possible. If you have previously issued permission to modify/distribute your code under some version of the GNU GPL, nothing stops you from also issuing permission to modify/distribute the code under a different license like the Apache License.
Note that if you have accepted contributions from any other person, those contributions may be under your original license, licensed to you by that other contributor. You may not re-license another person's code, unless they allow you do so, either by your asking nicely or via a previous agreement like a Contributor License Agreement.
In practice, your code is usually as permissively available as your most permissive license grant. If you had the reverse situation -- your code was under Apache and you want to re-license it under the GPL -- you could issue a GPL grant, but you could not take away the more permissive license grant you already made to any recipients who already downloaded it. People might be more likely to get the permissively-licensed version from someone else than use your more restrictively-licensed version. However, you could issue new code under the GPL only, making users choose between the old permissively-licensed code and the newer version with copyleft-licensed code.
answered 9 hours ago
apsillers♦
14k12346
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
If you hold the copyright to some code (usually, because you are the author), you may license that code however you please, and you may issue different licenses at any time. The matter of revoking previously-issued licenses is much trickier and may not be possible. If you have previously issued permission to modify/distribute your code under some version of the GNU GPL, nothing stops you from also issuing permission to modify/distribute the code under a different license like the Apache License.
Note that if you have accepted contributions from any other person, those contributions may be under your original license, licensed to you by that other contributor. You may not re-license another person's code, unless they allow you do so, either by your asking nicely or via a previous agreement like a Contributor License Agreement.
In practice, your code is usually as permissively available as your most permissive license grant. If you had the reverse situation -- your code was under Apache and you want to re-license it under the GPL -- you could issue a GPL grant, but you could not take away the more permissive license grant you already made to any recipients who already downloaded it. People might be more likely to get the permissively-licensed version from someone else than use your more restrictively-licensed version. However, you could issue new code under the GPL only, making users choose between the old permissively-licensed code and the newer version with copyleft-licensed code.
answered 9 hours ago
apsillers♦
14k12346
If you hold the copyright to some code (usually, because you are the author), you may license that code however you please, and you may issue different licenses at any time. The matter of revoking previously-issued licenses is much trickier and may not be possible. If you have previously issued permission to modify/distribute your code under some version of the GNU GPL, nothing stops you from also issuing permission to modify/distribute the code under a different license like the Apache License.
Note that if you have accepted contributions from any other person, those contributions may be under your original license, licensed to you by that other contributor. You may not re-license another person's code, unless they allow you do so, either by your asking nicely or via a previous agreement like a Contributor License Agreement.
In practice, your code is usually as permissively available as your most permissive license grant. If you had the reverse situation -- your code was under Apache and you want to re-license it under the GPL -- you could issue a GPL grant, but you could not take away the more permissive license grant you already made to any recipients who already downloaded it. People might be more likely to get the permissively-licensed version from someone else than use your more restrictively-licensed version. However, you could issue new code under the GPL only, making users choose between the old permissively-licensed code and the newer version with copyleft-licensed code.
answered 9 hours ago
apsillers♦
14k12346
edited 6 hours ago
answered 9 hours ago
apsillers♦
14k12346
answered 9 hours ago
apsillers♦
14k12346
answered 9 hours ago
apsillers♦
14k12346
14k12346
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Rexcirus is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Rexcirus is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Rexcirus is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Rexcirus is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fopensource.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f7533%2fcan-i-relicense-my-own-gpl-code-into-apache-mit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Does your code include that other MIT or Apache licensed code? If not, why did you mention it?
– Basil Bourque
3 hours ago
Possible duplicate of How can a project be relicensed?
– curiousdannii
9 mins ago