MIT vs GPL license

Question

The MIT license is GPL-compatible  Is the GPL license MIT-compatible  i e  I can include MIT-licensed code in a GPL-licensed product  but can I include GPL-licensed code in a MIT-licensed product   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  Is that correct  Is the GPL is more restrictive than the MIT license

User · Answer

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.

User · Answer

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

User · Answer

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     Free Redistribution Source Code Derived Works Integrity of The Author s Source Code No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor Distribution of License License Must Not Be Specific to a Product License Must Not Restrict Other Software 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

User · Answer

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

[licensing] MIT vs GPL license

Examples related to licensing